Armed Forces
	 — 
	Question

Lord Lee of Trafford: To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Prime Minister last had official discussions with the individual heads of the three armed services.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, the Prime Minister last held official discussions with the individual heads of the three armed services, together with the Chief and Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and our Permanent Secretary, on 18 September 2008.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, given that we are in a serious conflict in Afghanistan and that major decisions have to be taken on equipment and force manning levels, is it not simply outrageous that the Prime Minister has not seen the single service chiefs for more than seven months? Where does he get his military advice from? Is it from the McBrides of this world?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I am surprised at the noble Lord's final remark. The Prime Minister regularly meets members of the Armed Forces involved in operations at all levels, including those in command. He did so again only last week when he was in Afghanistan. On that occasion, he was accompanied by the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Prime Minister will continue to meet members of the Armed Forces at all levels, including the Chiefs of Staff, as appropriate.

Lord Soley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people feel very positive when they see the Prime Minister talking to troops in Afghanistan? We should recognise that engaging in talks with the troops at all levels is profoundly important for morale in the current situation. We should not forget that.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I think that the Prime Minister has made three visits to Afghanistan since last summer. I know that those visits are appreciated by our troops and by the Prime Minister, who feels that direct contact with those on operations is extremely important. I also know that many Members of this House have visited troops on operations. We are happy to arrange that, bearing in mind that we do not want to overburden those who are performing those operations.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, should not the Prime Minister meet the individual heads of each service very much more often than every seven months?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, as I said, that was the last formal meeting. He meets them on many other occasions, including on the operational tours I have just mentioned. As far as I know, there have been no complaints from the chiefs of individual services about their contact with, or the availability of, the Prime Minister.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, in 1998, the Government signed up to the Strategic Defence Review, which said that the Armed Forces should not be committed to more than two medium-sized continuing conflicts at one time. Of course, that is precisely what has happened. We have been involved in two medium-sized conflicts, with no serious increase in the defence budget. Is this not the time for another Strategic Defence Review, to place the forces where they know that they can face the future?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, as we have said on many occasions, we recognise that our Armed Forces are stretched, but we also recognise that they are not overstretched. There have been considerable increases in the budget. The Treasury has funded the operations that we are involved in, and defence spending on equipment is at its highest ever.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that meeting the chiefs of staff individually would give a better opportunity to hear about such things as the roles of the various services in Afghanistan and whether they think they need improvements in numbers?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, at the last formal meeting issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan were discussed, as were certain issues such as the service command paper, which is of great importance to the individual chiefs of staff and the equipment examination. There were opportunities at that formal meeting for those discussions, but there are also many other opportunities for those working in the operational field to make their views known to the Prime Minister, who is ready to listen on these matters.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble friend welcome the debate that seems to be emanating from the official opposition Benches on the need to review the future of Trident? I trust that we are discussing these matters with the heads of the services.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, as was made clear in the debate just last Thursday, the Government are committed to the progress of Trident. There are differing views, and there is a cost to be had. We would all like to see moves towards the diminution of our reliance on nuclear weapons, but we would have to be very secure that any progress in that direction did not put the safety of the United Kingdom in jeopardy.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said a few moments ago that defence spending on equipment was at record levels. How do the Government propose to maintain such spending?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, we have laid out the spending plans very clearly, and I am very pleased with the support that the MoD has had from the Treasury. As I mentioned earlier, all the operational costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan have come from the reserve, not the MoD budget.

Nigeria
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Cox: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent episodes of violence in northern Nigeria.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we are concerned about the ongoing violence in northern Nigeria, and we have discussed the situation with the Nigerian authorities as well as with the Christian and Muslim communities. We will continue to support measures to address religious tensions through our conflict prevention strategy, including support for NGOs working with communities in northern states and dialogue with the authorities.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. On a visit to northern Nigeria over Easter, I and my colleagues found incontrovertible evidence that the recent violence in Bauchi, Plateau and Niger states was religiously motivated, with attacks by well armed Muslim militants, assisted by foreign mercenaries, who have targeted Christian communities, killed hundreds of Christians and destroyed more than 50 churches and many hundreds of Christian homes and businesses. There was no reciprocal comparable violence against the Muslim communities. Will Her Majesty's Government make serious representations to the Nigerian authorities and Government to ensure adequate protection for all citizens?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that she has made a great case both here in this House and to me privately about the danger of the situation. I asked the British high commissioner to go to northern Nigeria to make a reassessment based on the facts that the noble Baroness shared with me, and he is there this week doing just that. Among other things, he will discuss the issues raised with the governor of Bauchi, one of the two states that have been affected. The noble Baroness knows well that there are disagreements about to what extent the violence is triggered by the marginalisation of certain groups and by the level of poverty, for which religion is an excuse, and to what extent it is a religiously triggered conflict. We need to get to the bottom of this, and we will go on pressing the Nigerian authorities to try to end these troubles.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what recent advice has the FCO given to British nationals living and working in this area?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in northern Nigeria, we have not felt the need to advise British nationals against travel or anything of that kind because the disputes, although violent, have nevertheless been internal. It is worth saying that while some lives were tragically lost over Easter, the last mass outbreak—in which, tragically, hundreds died—was last year. We give very different travel advice for the Niger delta in the south, which is extremely dangerous.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, given the reports of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cutting spending on conflict management, can the Minister confirm that there are sufficient funds in Abuja, through the high commission and DfID, to support the reconciliation work between Muslims and Christians being pioneered by the Bishop of Kaduna?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me reassure the right reverend Prelate that we are giving significant support to Bridge Builders and other groups involved in trying to bridge the conflict. Northern Nigeria is a huge area; if it were a country, it would be the second biggest in Africa, with tens of millions of people. It has some of the worst social indicators anywhere in the world, so it is actually the subject of DfID's largest bilateral programme in the world, because we are trying to target poverty in the north.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, apart from the several hundred killed and the tens of thousands displaced by the events last November in northern Nigeria, the special rapporteur on religious freedom has reported that, over a period of years, tens of thousands of people have been killed in religious clashes. What have the Government done to get from the Nigerians word about the two commissions of inquiry that were commissioned on recent events by the federal and state Governments respectively? Have our Government taken up with the Nigerian Government implementation of recommendation 31 by the UPR working group on promoting a culture of religious tolerance and protecting the rights of religious minorities?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, Nigeria prides itself on being a multi-religious, multicultural society, and it is in a precarious situation. We have pressed on the President and Ministers—I have pressed them personally—that they must do a better job on this. We followed with great care the progress of the two commissions to which the noble Lord refers. However, we are not convinced that enough steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence. In that sense, I do not want to convey to the House that we have any confidence that there will not be repetitions of what has tragically happened.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, what help has DfID been able to give to the 50,000 displaced people now in Bauchi and Plateau states following the attacks there on the churches, businesses and homes referred to by my noble friend, both in her Question and in the excellent report that she has published? Also, when the Minister is carrying out the assessment that he is undertaking about these events, will the role of the mercenaries who have been arrested in Nigeria—75 of them have come from places such as Niger, Chad and Saudi Arabia—be properly assessed?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in the bilateral programme—funding for it is rising to £140 million for next year—we have tried to ensure adequate humanitarian provision, as the noble Lord knows. I do not know the exact amount given to the group displaced in Bauchi; we will need to get back to him. I want to be clear that DfID is trying to work directly with local authorities and communities to ensure that not just the sources of conflict are addressed, but that there is better access to healthcare and education and a strengthened security and justice sector, as well as immunisation for children. Whatever the balance of cause for this between religious faith and poverty, we need to address both.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Government assure us that we are concerned equally about attacks on people of all religious faiths, and not just, as was perhaps implied, solely about attacks on Christians? In the past two or three years, we have seen attacks by Hindu on Muslim, Sunni on Shia and, sadly, in Rwanda and in Kenya, Christian on Christian, including the burning of churches with people inside. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are concerned with all uses of religious identity as a source of violence, and that we oppose all those uses in different places around the world?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. In northern Nigeria it is Christians who in general are in the minority, although Plateau State, where this started last November, is a majority Christian state. Nevertheless it is Christians who have borne the brunt of the violence and are in that sense the besieged minority; so it is an appropriate Question with regard to northern Nigeria, but I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that faiths of all kinds equally deserve our support.

Working Time Directive
	 — 
	Question

Lord Vinson: To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the implications for the British economy if they were unable to obtain a long-term derogation from the Working Time Directive.

Lord Brett: My Lords, while this Question was apposite at the time of its submission, it has been somewhat overtaken by events, as discussions in respect of the working time directive broke down without agreement on 27 April. The effect is that the existing working time directive, and the opt-out, continue in force.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad that he welcomes the opt-out particularly from the 48-hour week in the working time directive. Does he realise that it has come about with no thanks to the members of his party in the European Parliament who voted against it? However, does he agree that a derogation is only a derogation, and that it is too late to stop the mandatory restriction which is due this autumn on doctors' and surgeons' hours, much against their will? Can he tell the House what effect this valuable loss of expertise and time is likely to have on patient care? Does he also agree that the working time directive would have put an uncalled-for limitation on working hours, and that overtime in particular is an essential mechanism that brings together supply and demand and is a key component of our flexible economy? We need more vaccines quickly in a pandemic. Voluntary overtime—

Noble Lords: Too long!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord ought to draw this to an end. Will he ask a question?

Lord Vinson: In conclusion, my Lords, I say that voluntary overtime is one of the few ways in which British working men and women can better themselves—a point not often recognised in this House.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg your pardon, but Question Time is a time for short questions and short answers.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the opt-out is not unique to the United Kingdom: no less than 14 countries in the European Union have an opt-out and exercise it, including Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands. Reference was made specifically to the health service. The UK is compliant with judgments on on-call time. The Department of Health no longer operates widespread on-call working and has moved instead to a shift-working system. The NHS has made excellent progress but still requires, in a small minority of challenging services, a little more time to reduce the hours to 48 a week. This is allowed in the directive. It should also be said that the directive is voluntary—no one can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the talks collapsed because it was not only the United Kingdom that was against these proposals in the European Parliament and almost half the other member states were in favour of maintaining the opt-out system? Will he confirm that all other member states, as well as the United Kingdom, can now use this facility?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I can confirm that that is the case. The issue, as has been discussed, is one of efficiency and freedom. Individuals are free under the opt-out to do precisely that—to opt out.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that this country has a very proud record of postgraduate training in all branches of specialist medicine, including general practice, and that grave concern has been expressed by many junior doctors that continuing to restrict working hours under the working time directive could have a seriously adverse effect on the standard of training they receive before they finally achieve specialist status? Will he therefore ensure that the Government continue to support this opt-out indefinitely?

Lord Brett: My Lords, the simple answer is that I agree almost entirely with the noble Lord's sentiments. He has great experience of the health service. I think that the point he makes has great validity.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very important that we should bear in mind that the directive is apt to prevent a person working more than a given number of hours even though he is supported by a strong union and there is no risk whatever of exploitation, or to health and safety? A person may want to work longer hours—perhaps for family reasons or in an emergency. Would it not be not only economically disadvantageous to this country but gravely detrimental to the rights of the individual if in those circumstances he was prevented from working? Should we not bear in mind that aspect of the matter?

Lord Brett: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point about having to have a balanced approach. It is interesting to note, however, that the UK has the lowest proportion within the EU of those reporting that their work causes health effects such as stress. Therefore, the working hours themselves are clearly seen by the majority of the population not to be a problem. Working hours have in fact fallen in the UK: 20 per cent fewer full-time employees usually worked more than 48 hours in 2007 than did so in 1997.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not just human health and welfare that is affected but animal health and welfare? Particularly in remote rural areas, veterinary surgeons are very concerned about the working hours directive because it means that they cannot direct a young veterinary assistant to go out in the middle of the night to deliver a calf where there is a difficult delivery and then take responsibility if that young vet crashes on the way home because he is too tired. There are problems with the working hours directive not just for human medicine but for veterinary medicine.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the important thing about the opt-out is that it gives the individual the right to make their own judgment as to the hours they wish to work and those for which they are safe to work. If their employer seeks to take action against them for that judgment, there is recourse to employment tribunals to put that matter right.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is not the important thing about the opt-out that it would not have been necessary if the Government had not signed away our rights to decide these things by signing the Social Chapter?

Lord Brett: My Lords, far be it from me to have to point out to a person who takes such interest in the matter that this is not part of the Social Chapter. The working time directive is not part of the Social Chapter. It is in fact a health and safety issue. I always admire our ability in this House to jump from the Question on the Order Paper to the question that we want to ask, and I recognise Bob Beamon as a great performer of long jumps—anyone who does not know who Bob Beamon was should consult the noble Lord, Lord Coe, or the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—but it is a very great leap from this health and safety issue to the whole question of European membership.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the key words in my noble friend's original Question, as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, were "long-term derogation". Although we welcome the recent news, do not the Government expect the issue of Britain's opt-out to be raised again in Brussels after the European elections, so it is far from finally resolved in our favour?

Lord Brett: My Lords, that becomes a hypothetical question, because it is quite unclear what will happen next. It is not in the gift of Her Majesty's Government or indeed of the European Parliament; the issue is now with the Commission. It is for the Commission to decide how it wishes to proceed, if it wishes to proceed.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us for how long the derogation is in being and how soon a decision will be made? I draw his attention to the implications that it would have for all those involved in the farming community, particularly at harvest time, when clearly one cannot work for just 48 hours a week.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no end date to the issue when the opt-out will be decided on, derogation denied or the issue even discussed. As I said to the previous questioner, the issue is now one for the Commission to take forward.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the British people would have voted to stay in what they were assured was a common market in 1975 if they had thought that they were going to be subjected to this and much other nonsense from Brussels?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I know that for the noble Lord all roads lead to Rome—or is that away from Rome? This one does not.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does the Minister believe that working hours for British people should be made by the British Parliament?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I believe that working time for British people is decided by British people, in the normal way, between the employer and themselves. I would advise any group of any large number to have the advantage of a trade union to help them do that.

Swine Flu: Aircraft
	 — 
	Question

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to ensure that all air in airliners is fresh, in order to reduce the risk of the spread of swine flu.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, up to half the cabin air is recirculated and mixed before being distributed through the cabin. The air is mixed and passed through high-efficiency particulate air filters, which are 99.97 per cent efficient at removing bacteria, viruses and particulate material. The total volume of cabin air is exchanged every two to three minutes, compared with every five to 10 minutes in most air-conditioned buildings.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Unfortunately, this 99 per cent that he mentions is what the manufacturers say; they say that they construct the filters in such a way that they will filter the viruses. However, they have never tested these filters, which clearly cannot filter viruses out; I personally have inspected them. The problem is that that air is full of all sorts of bugs including tuberculosis and viruses such as swine flu.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, when somebody as experienced as the noble Lord makes an assertion, it is difficult to deny it. However, I know of no evidence to the effect of what he affirms. I know that I spent 3,500 hours breathing such air, that it is sourced from very clean air—way above the earth most of the time—and that it is heated cooled. It is very good air; the only thing wrong with it is that it is a bit thin and rather dry.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, there were reports at the weekend that the Health Protection Agency office at Heathrow terminal 1 is to be closed permanently and that the hours of the other Health Protection Agency offices at Heathrow are going to be cut to daylight hours only, or rather from 6 am to 6 pm. I can vouch for the fact that many passengers come in at night—they fly over Kew to come to Heathrow—so can the Minister explain how those passengers who come into this country at night are going to be screened for swine flu or any other infectious disease?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I was not aware of the facts as asserted by the noble Baroness. The essence of the prevention measures taken by the airlines lies in observing their passengers, in ensuring that people with any symptoms recognised on the aircraft are isolated and reported to the appropriate authorities and in continuing the appropriate tracking of any passengers adjacent to them. If there is anything that I can add about opening hours at Heathrow, I will write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, could the Minister tell me, with his experience, whether the circulation of air in airplanes is the only source of possible infection transmission? What about other hygiene measures?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the circulation of air is the least likely reason for infection on an aircraft. There is no evidence that the pressurised cabin makes the transmission of disease more likely. Simple viral infections may be transmitted due to the proximity of individuals who may have such conditions. The airline industry has developed a series of working procedures with the World Health Organisation, IATA and ICAO and issues specific guidelines to cabin crew, cleaners and maintenance crew, the whole object of which is to concentrate on the other hygiene issues associated with this condition. In the United Kingdom, those standards were already being adhered to by British carriers.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most of the air in an airliner's cabin comes through the bleed air off one of the jet engines? Indeed, there are grave concerns over the air toxicity in airlines at this time. A survey is being undertaken by the Cranfield Institute of Technology on this air toxicity, which rather goes to show that the air filters do not work properly in planes. Will he say when the Cranfield Institute of Technology will report on air toxicity in airliners?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, all the facts set out by the noble Lord are valid. The Government are taking seriously the concern about toxicity. We believe that there is a problem and have committed to the study as a precautionary measure. In fact, the Committee on Toxicity said that there was no proof either way that there was any connection between the bleed air in the cabin and pilot health. I cannot give an exact date by which Cranfield University will produce its report, but it is actively engaged in the cabin air sampling programme with five participating airlines. I hope that the peer review study will be published as a whole as soon as is practicable.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what plans are being made for pupils, who may have been flying, to take GCSEs and A-levels if, as is likely, there are widespread school closures? I declare an interest as a mother of a GSCE student and an A-level student.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, fortunately my noble friend has prepared the House for this sort of question. It is a leap too far.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if there was any danger to the health of pilots, would not the appropriate union, BALPA, take it up? Is there any evidence to show that it has done so?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, as a former shop steward in that union, I can absolutely assure the House that, if there was the slightest danger to pilots, the union would take it up with great energy.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is a growing and serious problem? Has he been informed that the staff on aeroplanes are now having to take medication to ensure that they do not get these colds that so often turn into flu? Finally, is he also aware that, when people smoked on aeroplanes, the routine was to clean the air thoroughly but that, since smoking has been abolished, the air is not cleaned routinely because that is too expensive? Will he do something about this?

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the practical effect of recirculating air is a reduction in fuel consumption and hence a reduction in CO2 emissions. There was a window of opportunity in the back half of the past century—in 1999—when a comparison was made in a wholly random group between the propensity to catch colds, flu and so on in aircraft that did not recirculate and the propensity in aircraft that did. This was referenced in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which concluded:
	"We found no evidence that aircraft cabin air recirculation increases the risk for URI"—
	upper respiratory tract infection—
	"symptoms in passengers traveling aboard commercial jets".

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Order 2009
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord Tunnicliffe
	That the draft order laid before the House on 18 March be approved.
	Relevant Document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 April.
	Motion agreed.

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Copy of Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	1st Report Delegated Powers Committee
	1st Report Constitution Committee
	11th Report Joint Committee Human Rights

Report (1st Day)

Schedule 1: The Marine Management Organisation
	Amendment 1
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	1: Schedule 1, page 214, line 8, at end insert "and that as far as is reasonably practicable these skills and expertise cover the range of functions of the MMO"

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall start off the Report stage of this Bill by moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendment 2, which is in the same group. As we begin that new stage I should, in doing so, remind the House of my relevant interests: my membership of the British Mountaineering Council—and my involvement with its access, conservation and environment group—and of the Open Spaces Society. Both of those memberships will come into play a long way down the road, in Part 9. Nevertheless, I declare them now.
	Amendments 1 and 2 refer to Schedule 1, which is about the membership of the Marine Management Organisation. We had a long debate on a wide range of amendments on these matters in Committee, in which we questioned qualifications for membership of the MMO and probed the size of its board. On most of those amendments, we had very satisfactory answers from the Government and, while we may have done some details differently, we are not quibbling about the way in which they are going. The amendments crystallise two points that were, perhaps, not finally resolved completely satisfactorily.
	Amendment 1 proposes that, in the schedule, so far,
	"as is reasonably practicable these skills and expertise"—
	that is, the skills and expertise of members of the MMO, should—
	"cover the range of functions of the MMO".
	From what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in Committee, it is fairly clear that that is the intention of the Government. He said:
	"To assist the MMO in fulfilling its objective, that relevant expertise and experience should as far as possible be drawn from one or more of the pillars of sustainable development; in other words, board members should have experience of environmental, economic and/or social issues".
	That was all set out in the helpful briefing note that has been provided and, I think, published on the department's website. The Minister then said,
	"The second consideration is the need to ensure a proper balance of skills and experience so the board functions effectively and adds value to the organisation as a whole".
	Finally, he talked about the need for people of the highest calibre to be appointed, and said:
	"That must be a prime consideration",
	although,
	"we need to ensure that those high calibre members come from a variety of specified backgrounds to ensure that the board works as effectively as possible".—[Official Report, 12/1/09; col. 1051.]
	I think that the Minister was, in saying those things, speaking in favour of this amendment, which would simply put the principle of everything that he said into the Bill. That ought to be done, and I do not understand any reasons why it should not be.
	Amendment 2 refers to the number. The Minister stated clearly in Committee that, while the Bill states that the number of members should be no fewer than five and no more than eight, plus the chair—that is, six to nine including the chair—the Government intended, nevertheless, that there would be, at least in the first instance, the full complement allowed by that range. Some of us argued that if that was the case it would be sensible to raise the number to the middle of the range, but that was not a major issue of principle. It is clear that the Government intend to appoint a chair and eight other members. I do not quibble with that and I am content that that is a sensible way forward.
	This amendment says that, under the further powers of the Secretary of State to change the range of the number of members from five to eight to other figures, the number of members should not fall below five. That is the minimum number necessary to make sense of not just what the Government will do during the inauguration of the MMO but also to make sense of what future Governments and Secretaries of State might wish to do. I therefore suggest that, whatever the Secretary of State might propose, he cannot go below five members plus the chair. That is the absolute minimum that would be appropriate if the MMO is to succeed in its work. Therefore, that should be in the Bill. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I should declare that I have been a local councillor for more than 10 years and a member of a number of conservation and sporting bodies, including the Game Conservancy Trust, the BASC and the Salmon & Trout Association, as well as the Countryside Alliance. We had a good debate in Committee on the composition of the MMO board. It certainly is not possible to have every interest group represented on the board: it would quite clearly be too unwieldy. There was consensus from all around the Committee that marine science and marine conservation expertise should be available to the board, whether as a member of the board or through the ability of the board to call in the expertise to give evidence. Provided that ability exists—I should be grateful for that assurance from the Minister—clearly, the most important skill of a member of the board is good judgment. The Committee also had concerns over the board's ability to form a quorum, which would be exacerbated if the number fell below five. I ask the Minister whether he envisages the number ever falling below five.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a very helpful start to our debate on Report. It goes right to the heart of the board of the Marine Management Organisation. Clearly, we are expecting a lot of this board. It is right that it should have high calibre people and should be able to operate in an efficient and effective way.
	Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that board members represent,
	"as far as is reasonably practicable",
	the range of the MMO's functions. We consider the drafting of the Bill to be sufficient. It allows the Secretary of State to appoint people to the board who have experience related to the MMO's functions. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has said, we debated this in Committee. I think that there is general consensus that we do not want what might be described as sectoral representation on the MMO's board but we do seek members with experience and expertise across all three pillars of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social. With a board of between five and eight members, which we think is entirely appropriate, it is not possible specifically to represent all the functions of the MMO. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, that good judgment is the essential ingredient for all the people who are appointed to the board.
	On the question of whether the board would have available to it expertise in marine science and conservation, whether among the board membership or available to the board, I reply in the affirmative. We will come on to the third group of amendments where we will debate the Government's amendment to ensure that a chief scientific adviser is appointed. I said in Committee that there will be a scientific advisory committee, which the MMO will appoint to advise it. I can reassure the noble Earl on those matters.
	Amendment 2 ensures that the number of board members does not fall below five. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on this point. I would have liked to have accepted his amendment as it is. Alas, as ever, I am advised that parliamentary counsel would like to have a look at it. Will the noble Lord accept that I will seek further advice on this and come back to him? In light of that, I would welcome a further amendment from him at Third Reading.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, that seems like an offer I cannot refuse. I thank the Minister for that. It is a matter of common sense. I will be delighted to move a further amendment at Third Reading if I receive instructions from the Minister or his advisers on what the wording should be. On the question of the composition of, and the range of expertise and experience on, the board, I do not think that there is any difference of opinion between myself and the Minister, or, indeed, between us and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We all agree on what should happen and how. I am simply suggesting that the Bill should say slightly more strongly what we all want to see. We certainly do not want to see sectoral representation or representation of individual organisations. We have all been convinced that that is not the way forward. However, it seems that I am not going to persuade the Minister. The Bill has a long way to go before it reaches Royal Assent and these matters may be discussed further in the House of Commons. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
	Amendment 1 withdrawn.
	Amendment 2 not moved.
	Amendment 3
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	3: Schedule 1, page 214, line 39, at end insert "has entered into a debt arrangement programme under Part 1 of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 17) as the debtor or"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. They are all minor and technical in nature, but they are necessary to improve the clarity of the drafting. I apologise for the number of amendments. The House will recall that our first day in Committee was 12 January, which inhibited the Government from having the amendments ready for Committee over the Christmas Recess. I know that we all look back on those times with great joy. We have tabled the amendments for Report and I apologise for how many there are, but they do not raise issues of principle.
	Amendments 3 and 4 add new text to paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. The paragraph provides the grounds on which the Secretary of State can suspend or terminate the appointment of the chair, deputy chair or any MMO board member. The form of words that we have added ensures that all appropriate Scottish law on forms of insolvency is included in these grounds.
	Amendment 26 to Clause 7 is a minor and technical amendment that corrects a reference in this clause to Section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The clause refers to functions that the MMO exercises under Section 4B of that Act, whereas it exercises those functions under Sections 4 and 4A, so the clause should refer to those sections instead.
	Amendment 27 inserts a reference in Clause 9(3) to the area in which this clause is applicable, which is in relation to the whole or any part of England or the English inshore region. The reason for this is to limit the geographical scope of this transitional provision to that particular area. This is consistent with the other transitional provisions in subsection (2) and is necessary because the Secretary of State's functions under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 are being transferred to the MMO only in respect of England and the English inshore region. It follows that any application made to the Secretary of State before the commencement of the Bill that is to be treated in future as being made to the MMO should relate only to licences applying in England and the English inshore region.
	Amendments 28 and 29 to Clauses 9(3) and 10(5) respectively allow applications for licences that have been made but not withdrawn before the licensing functions are transferred to the MMO to be treated as applications made to the MMO after the coming into force of these sections. Amendments 30 to 32 reword Clause 12(3) so that it mirrors the wording of Clause 13(3). As currently drafted, the clause might inadvertently transfer functions relating to Scottish generating stations to the MMO in the future if the existing Executive devolution order is repealed and a new one put in its place because the revocation would return the functions to the Secretary of State. This clause would then transfer them to the MMO before the new Executive devolution order took effect. The amendments are needed to prevent this.
	Amendments 33 and 34 to Clause 13 make a small change to the wording so as to remove references to "Scottish areas" and the definition of this term. It has been removed because it is not a term used elsewhere in the Bill. Amendments 35 and 37 change Clause 14(3)(a) to exclude people employed by the Scottish or Welsh Administrations from the definition of a person employed in the Civil Service of the state in this clause. The clause is intended only to apply to people employed by the English Administration, but as drafted it inadvertently includes those in Scotland and Wales, and we want to correct that.
	Amendment 40 is a minor amendment to Clause 18 that would remove the word "marine" so that the drafting is consistent in Chapter 3 of Part 1, in particular Clause 15, which refers to agreements authorising the performance of any "function" of the MMO and not a "marine function". Amendment 52 to Clause 25 leaves out the words,
	"provision of such publications or"
	in subsection (1) and inserts,
	"publication of such documents or the provision of such".
	This amendment is needed to achieve consistency of terminology with Clause 25(2).
	Amendment 53 inserts a new clause after Clause 28. It is needed to allow the MMO to carry on certain prosecutions that have already been started by the Secretary of State, including by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, before the functions are transferred to the MMO. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is good to hear that the Minister and his team had a restorative time over Christmas and the New Year. Perhaps I may declare my interest merely in the welfare of fish in and around Scotland, which is relevant to the Bill. This group of amendments is a fine illustration of what it takes to keep everything as tidy as possible when you have devolution settlements at the core of your legislation. The Scots will be pleased to see Amendments 27 to 29 as they are anxious to maintain their own management of policy over the culling of seals. Amendments 30 to 32 deserve a prize for the man who managed to dig it up in the effort to produce legislation that will cope with future repeals of powers, as it will prevent Scotland losing out on its current blanket power over all electricity generation if there is any repeal of the legislation.
	The one puzzle to me around Clause 13 and Amendment 33 is that it is in the Bill to deal with safety zones, but Section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 deals only with safety zones around renewable energy installations. Scotland has powers to implement other types of energy generating stations, so these will not be covered by this legislation if they happen to be envisaged.
	Amendments 32 and 34 are linked, as they try to find the right placement in the Bill for the definition of "Scottish waters" and "the Scottish part" in relation to renewable energy zones. The Bill endeavours to emphasise that these phrases have the same meaning as in Section 95 of the Energy Act although, as far as I can see, that section does not, in itself, have any definition of those terms in relation to Scottish waters.
	This brings me to the puzzling way in which the Government have defined the marine areas up in the north. The Bill refers in the main to the Scottish inshore area and the Scottish offshore area, as if, at a certain level, they have an equivalence. However, this part has the much more definitive term "Scottish waters", which represents the fact that the inshore area is part of Scotland and is the term used in previous legislation. Surely the Minister must admit that consistency would be better served if this term were used throughout the Bill. This would also emphasise the very different framework that governs the Scottish offshore area and the Scottish inshore area and how it might be more appropriately labelled to demonstrate the difference. Can the Minister give us any explanation of why the Government have used "the Scottish inshore area" as a definition?

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful for all that explanation of the Scottish stuff from the noble Duke—that was the one part of these amendments I was not sure that I understood. I have to say that I went through the rest of them with a fine-toothed comb, because I have a basic principle that, if the Government put forward a long list of technical amendments like this, somewhere in the middle there is something that they are trying to get through without anyone noticing. I do not think that there is in this group; I think that the amendments are entirely sensible, so I have no further comments to make.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise my heartfelt relief that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is taking the government amendments at their face value—as he should, on all occasions, because they are purely to make the Bill as clear as we can make it. I know what an enthusiast he is for consistency and clarity in legislation, so I welcome his support for these amendments.
	I want to emphasise to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that we are concerned to have the same reference to the Scottish position throughout the Bill. The problem with the definition in this clause is that we had not taken consistency throughout the Bill sufficiently into account, which is why this amendment is necessary. We have now removed reference to Scottish areas and the definition of the term, but the danger, as the noble Duke indicated, was that we would have a lack of consistency and clarity in our reference to the position in Scotland. We have looked at this carefully and consider that with this amendment we have made the references consistent with the rest of the Bill. We will come on to the Scottish position on inshore waters when we refer to the Scottish marine Bill, which is the responsibility of the devolved Administration.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the fact that the Government are taking out the "Scottish areas" definition is certainly simplification, but my point is that we are still left with "Scottish waters" in this part of the Bill, while in the rest of it the same portion of the sea is known as the Scottish inshore area.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Duke referred to the Energy Act. He will accept that the Government do not want to change definitions in other Acts but to be consistent with them. We have introduced consistent terms: by "inshore waters" we mean nought to 12 nautical miles, while "offshore" refers to 12 to 200 nautical miles. We have that throughout the Bill and it applies to all UK waters, so we are consistent.
	As I have indicated, we are bound to have some reference in other amendments to the work of the Scottish Parliament in its devolved responsibilities, which it will produce in the marine Bill that it will consider in the not-too-distant future. However, I reassure the noble Duke that we are not changing the sense of the position but seeking to make it consistent. As he has indicated, we have to make it consistent not only throughout the Bill but with other legislation that relates to it.
	Amendment 3 agreed.
	Amendment 4
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	4: Schedule 1, page 214, line 40, leave out "made a composition arrangement with, or"
	Amendment 4 agreed.
	Amendment 5
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	5: Schedule 1, page 216, line 3, at end insert—
	"Chief scientific adviser
	14A (1) The MMO must appoint a person to be its chief scientific adviser.
	(2) The chief scientific adviser is an employee of the MMO.
	(3) The MMO may only make an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) with the approval of the Secretary of State as to any terms and conditions of employment not falling within paragraph 16 or 17."

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak to other government amendments in this group. Our debates in Committee on Clause 2 were lengthy but in many ways some of the most important; they went right to the core of the role of the Marine Management Organisation and to the core of the marine aspects of this legislation. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions and debates about the many important matters that have been raised.
	The amendments that are aligned with Amendment 7 deal with the MMO's general objective in Clause 2. That objective now has three core elements: first, the obligation to make a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development; secondly, a new obligation to take account of all relevant facts and matters, which are set out in detail in Amendment 9; and, thirdly, a duty to act in a consistent and co-ordinated way.
	We have preserved the wording of the MMO's objective to make,
	"a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development",
	in order to maintain consistency with the terminology used throughout the Bill, notably in Clause 56. That is also consistent with other legislation and, in particular, to that related to planning. However, we have now added a broad power in Amendment 8 for the MMO to do anything that it considers necessary or expedient to help it to achieve its general objective by,
	"furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes".
	In Amendment 7, in relation to the types of material to which the MMO might wish to have regard when carrying out its functions and making decisions, we started with the new core duty in Clause 2(1)(b), to which I have already referred. The reference to,
	"all relevant facts and matters",
	includes scientific and other evidence, with a read-across at the end to Clause 23, under which the MMO can undertake or commission research.
	Amendment 5 is perhaps an appropriate point at which to remind noble Lords of the undertaking that I made in Committee to establish a science advisory committee, which demonstrates our commitment to an evidence-based approach for the MMO. I hope that noble Lords will also welcome our additional undertaking today to appoint a chief scientific adviser to the MMO.
	Turning back to Amendment 9 to Clause 2, while emphasising the importance of an evidence-based approach, we would not wish to give the impression that specific mention of scientific evidence gives greater weight to any one aspect of sustainable development compared to the other aspects. In order to ensure that relevant evidence such as environmental and socio-economic data is not seen as less important, proposed paragraph (b) includes other evidence relating to each limb of sustainable development. Other matters that might be relevant to a given case are encapsulated in proposed paragraph (c).
	In Amendment 18, by including a definition of evidence for the purposes of Clause 2, we have endeavoured to address any concern that, on a narrow reading, the word "evidence" might not include studies that predict or project the likely future condition of the seas. This definition makes it clear that "evidence" includes predictions and other opinions resulting from the consideration of evidence.
	I hope that the rewording of the MMO's general objective, to which we have given careful consideration, will meet the approval of noble Lords. We have also gone further in response to concerns relating to the accountability of the MMO. Amendment 58 deletes subsection (3) so that Clause 36 now provides that the guidance to be given to the MMO by the Secretary of State on its sustainable development objective, and any other guidance issued by the Secretary of State to the MMO, will be subject to consultation with such bodies or persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Amendments 16 and 17 to Clause 2 further provide that the guidance to be given to the MMO by the Secretary of State on its sustainable development objective will be laid before each House of Parliament in draft, following which it will be given to the MMO and published by the Secretary of State.
	I believe that this package of amendments very much meets many of the legitimate issues and concerns raised in Committee. The legislation will provide a clear and firm footing to the MMO in relation to its objectives. I believe that the appointment of a chief scientific adviser and the commitment that I have already given to establishing a scientific advisory committee meet the points on scientific evidence. I hope that this package of measures in general receives support from your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for, and congratulate him on, this group of amendments. It is fair to say that he has gone almost all the way in response to the matters that we raised with respect to scientific evidence.
	We have reached Report, and it is now the tradition of your Lordships' House that a speaker who has an interest to declare should declare it at each stage of the Bill's progress. In Committee, I declared that I was the chairman of the board of trustees of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, an unpaid post. Since February, I have ceased to be its chairman—not, I add hastily, because I have been summarily dismissed, but because my term of office of seven years came to an end. However, I have found myself quickly accelerated to the post of chairman of the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership, also unpaid.
	I welcome Amendment 5, which requires the MMO to appoint a person to be its chief scientific adviser. That goes further than was required by many of your Lordships in Committee and I am delighted that the Government have reached that decision. The Minister also referred to the establishment of a scientific advisory committee, about which I am also delighted. That does not appear in the Bill, but I understand that it will be a requirement to be included in subsequent guidance issued to the MMO. I also welcome the change that the Government have made in Amendment 7 by inserting a third stipulation in the clause designating general objectives. New paragraph (b) requires the MMO to take account of,
	"all relevant facts and matters".
	My only hesitations relate to government Amendment 9, which seeks to elaborate on new paragraph (b) in Amendment 7. In order for me to clarify my two amendments, Amendments 10 and 11, I need to read out Amendment 9, which inserts new subsection (1B) into Clause 2:
	"For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the facts and matters that may be taken into account include each of the following—
	(a) scientific evidence, whether available to, or reasonably obtainable by, the MMO; (b) other evidence so available or obtainable relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development; (c) such facts or matters not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) as the MMO may consider appropriate".
	I am puzzled about two things. The first is that the word used in the introductory part of the amendment should be "may" rather than "shall". I have tabled Amendment 10 because, if the MMO simply may take into account scientific evidence and,
	"other evidence so available or obtainable relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development",
	what is the point of stipulating them at all? It clearly may take them into account under the general objective in paragraph (b) in Amendment 7. Surely new subsection (1B) will bite only if the MMO must take those matters into account and must regard them as relevant. Of course, the weight that it gives those relevant matters is entirely within its discretion. It may give them very little weight or in certain circumstances none at all, but they will plainly be relevant. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the correct verb is not "may" but "shall".
	My second quibble is on paragraph (c) in new subsection (1B). I remind the House that new paragraph (c) refers to,
	"such facts or matters not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)—
	those are the paragraphs that cover scientific, social, economic and environmental matters—
	"as the MMO may consider appropriate".
	The word "appropriate" appears there for the first time. It is not defined anywhere. What happens if a matter is relevant but the MMO does not consider it appropriate? Surely the better word to substitute for "appropriate" in new paragraph (c) would be "relevant".
	Finally, I entirely concur with Amendment 18. The Government propose to define "evidence" as including,
	"predictions and other opinions resulting from the consideration of evidence by any person".
	It is well known that, in terms of hard evidence, we have knowledge of only about 2 to 3 per cent of the waters that the Bill seeks to cover. The only way in which we can come to sensible scientific conclusions about the other 97 or 98 per cent is by using scientific models to make predictions from the little evidence that we have. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that these modelling procedures should be included in the definition of "evidence" and I am delighted that the Government have done so.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in a very mild and almost trivial way. I am not sure that I quite understood what the Minister said about scientific evidence. I am an engineer who used to have a nodding acquaintance with science. I thought that I heard him say that other matters would be taken into account in addition to scientific evidence. I also thought that I heard him say—I may be wrong—that one matter that may be taken into account is opinion. I am not sure that opinion has any kind of equivalence to scientific evidence. I hope that I misheard the noble Lord. It looks as though I did, because he is nodding his head. Perhaps he can clear my mind about that later.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened to the concerns expressed previously and I welcome the various amendments. Amendment 5 talks about the appointment of a chief scientific adviser and that person being an employee of the MMO. Is it anticipated that he will be a full-time professional with the MMO or will he be one of the great and the good who is brought in for specific purposes? That is not clear in the amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, unlike the previous list of technical government amendments, these are extremely important amendments. Like other speakers, I believe that we should be very grateful to the Government for doing a lot of hard work in bringing them forward. Some of them are not exactly as we would have phrased them. In particular, we would have gone further in having a clear bias towards conservation rather than the equivalence of the three pillars as the Government refer to sustainable development. Nevertheless, the amendments are a substantial step forward compared with the text of the Bill when first presented to the House.
	If this were the House of Commons considering the Bill for the first time before sending it to the Lords, we would be looking for points of division and difference at this stage and sending it away with those clear points of difference expressed through Divisions. The culture of this House is a little different. Sometimes we are more bent towards consensus where it can be achieved rather than division. A lot of noble Lords around the House will think that what we have is not ideal but it is a great deal better than what we were first presented with. The Government have clearly listened to the very long debate that we had in Committee—I think that it lasted about a day but the Minister indicates that it was longer—on this and related matters. We should be grateful for that. The Conservatives have added their names to some of the amendments. These Benches have not done that but we are certainly prepared to support them at this stage as a basis for sending this Bill to the House of Commons in a better condition. Then the House of Commons can start again and have a good thrash over it down there.
	These amendments are fundamental. Some of us who have been talking informally with the Government and their advisers over the past few weeks are aware that they have struggled to come up with this wording. However, the struggle has been worth while, and therefore we should thank them for doing so.
	The first major point here concerns science. Different points of view were put forward in Committee regarding how a stronger emphasis on the scientific basis of decisions by the MMO should be expressed. Some thought that should be done through committees while others suggested that it should be done through advisers or specific membership of the board. The Government have come up with a good proposal. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked a very important question, to which we shall be interested to hear the answer. This should not be a part-time, one day a month, ring up for advice when you want it sort of post. It is a fundamental post as far as the MMO is concerned. Having said that, the Government's solution is welcome and we support it.
	More fundamental even than that is the Government's substantial rewrite of Clause 2. There was great concern that there was not much in it initially and that the Government were talking only about making a consistent and co-ordinated contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. However, the Government have added the need to take account,
	"of all relevant facts and matters"
	and defined them in new Section (1B), which states that they have to be based on,
	"scientific evidence ... other evidence so available or obtainable relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development".
	It is interesting that the Government are beginning to get close to a definition of sustainable development, which they did not want to do. However, they are edging closer to that and they will inevitably have to define it.
	The third element of the facts and matters that need to be taken into account is really anything else that the, "MMO may consider appropriate". That is sensible and a good basis, particularly when taken together with the next section on guidance. The Government have managed to include "furthering", although not exactly in the way in which many Members of the Committee wanted. I congratulate them on their ingenuity in doing that. Government Amendment 8 refers to,
	"furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes".
	The Government have included three pillars of sustainable development in their Amendment 9, which must come close to being the foundation and a definition of it. That is coming very close to furthering sustainable development. I understand that is as close as the Government can get to meeting the requests that came from all around the Committee. Nevertheless, it is a great step forward.
	The sections on guidance are interesting. If I have understood them correctly, Government Amendments 55 to 58 are technical and tidying-up amendments as a result of government Amendments 13 to 18. First, they make the guidance that the Secretary of State has to give to the MMO in relation to its objectives much more specific and much clearer. Secondly, it has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thirdly, it makes it subject to something that looks very like the negative procedure on statutory instruments. This is very unusual in relation to guidance as opposed to orders and regulations—the normal statutory instruments that we are used to—because of the fact that there is not a procedure that can be referred to. The procedure has to be set out here and it has to be 40 days and 40 nights and so on. There is the opportunity for either House to table what is, in effect, a negative resolution against the guidance that is being put forward.
	Very often, we take the view that the negative procedure in relation to statutory instruments is not all that important. In this House, we very rarely vote against a statutory instrument, never mind use the negative procedure, and debates are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and are formalised. That is true. Nevertheless, statutory instruments are scrutinised through a number of different committees of both Houses. They are subject to debate and if the Government get things wrong they risk looking stupid or just being shown to be wrong. This all means that the care that is put into the drawing up of statutory instruments is all that much greater than it otherwise would be. That is going to be the case with this guidance. What either House does with the guidance when it gets it is up to the House. We in this House, if we wish, could set up a procedure during the 40 days and 40 nights to scrutinise the legislation in some way—in the way statutory instruments are scrutinised or even in a more thorough way. The opportunity is there if we wish to take it.
	I believe that this is a great step forward. This is very important guidance indeed, because it is going to be fundamental to what the MMO does and the way in which it works. Therefore, I very much welcome it. However, we should be clear that, in a sense, this is pushing the boundaries a little bit of the powers and activities of Parliament and the powers and activities of this House. I am not complaining about that; I am all in favour of it. We should be aware that we are doing that and, if it is not new ground, it is unusual ground. On that basis, the Government should be congratulated on being a little bit innovative in the way in which they are approaching this. They are being innovative in a way that puts more power and influence in the hands of Parliament and of this House in particular. Having said that, we welcome the amendments and we are prepared to support them today.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I, too, welcome Amendment 5, which goes a long way to meeting the concerns that I raised earlier in the proceedings on this legislation. It is important that the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, be properly addressed. I speak with some experience of this, having done rather more than five years as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence.
	Two elements are important. First, there is the seniority of the appointment. Secondly, there is the amount of time. Seniority is extremely important, because in the Civil Service, in agencies and elsewhere seniority determines how much you are listened to. It is very important that this person be listened to. It determines which meetings you attend and whether you are aware of the total business that is going on in the organisation. It is important that it is a senior position. I judge from the form of the amendment that it is intended that this be senior, because the appointment of an individual has to be approved by the Secretary of State. The MoD made its Chief Scientific Adviser appointment at Permanent Secretary level, and I believe that it still does. That is the sort of clout that is needed.
	Secondly, the time commitment, too, is very important—certainly in the early years when the appointee is learning, if I may put it this way, where the stamps are kept. You have to know how the operation works, and where your help will be needed and useful. The problem is that many people in the department do not know that they need advice or help in particular areas, so the person holding the post must be proactive. In the early years, this involves a significant commitment of time. I worked full-time; I do not think that the post has to be full-time, but in the early years one is really looking at four days a week to be effective. Later, when things are under way and the MMO is better established, it could be less. However, it would be very important for the Minister to take account of these things in his guidance to the organisation.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope not to detract from what my noble friend said in supporting these amendments, but I am afraid that I am going to ask a couple of questions now, rather than leave them until the Bill goes to the Commons. I declare an interest as joint president of London Councils. London boroughs would not normally be thought of as coastal, but some points in the Bill may affect them; and, as my noble friend reminds me, I live on a tidal part of the Thames.
	The first question follows the comments made by other noble Lords about the chief scientific adviser. I wonder about the provision for approval by the Secretary of State of most of the terms and conditions of employment. I am not arguing with the Secretary of State's power of approval over the appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has just mentioned. However, there must be many provisions other than those that fall within paragraphs 16 and 17, which are about remuneration and pensions. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State should be looking at things like holidays and sick leave. It is a small point, but that would be micromanagement at a nano level.

Lord Greaves: Not a nanny level?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps nanny as well.
	My other question arises from Amendment 18, which provides for co-ordination between the MMO's area and other areas. The MMO's area is largely the UK marine area, which includes the sea, the seabed and the subsoil to high water—we find that later in the Bill. Will the Minister explain how the Government anticipate that the relationship between the MMO and the local authorities will be dealt with? Local authority areas go down to mean low water. There is an overlap there, because the MMO area goes to mean high water. Will proposed new Clause 2(8) be a basis for inter-authority working? I am using the government amendment to ask a wide-ranging question, because this is relevant to the marine policy statement, marine plans and real-world decisions. I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who at the last stage referred to offshore energy and the point at which it comes onshore. My noble friends and I are still unclear about how the relationships will work and who will take the lead and the necessary decisions covering certain geographic points.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, when the Joint Committee considered the draft Bill, it thought that the general objective of the MMO was, if I remember our wording correctly, rather woolly, so I am delighted to join other noble Lords in welcoming the government amendments, which make the objective much clearer. I also very much welcome the fact that the Government have already said that the MMO can set up a scientific advisory committee, which was another of our broad recommendations. The fact that they are going further and appointing a chief scientific adviser is a bonus.
	I am also pleased that the Government are keeping the three pillars of sustainable development on an equal footing. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: I do not think that the environment, or whatever, should take precedence over the others. There should be a correct balance. That is what the Government propose; that is absolutely right and I welcome it.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, before I contribute to this stage of the Bill, I shall declare my interests. Details are available in the register, but I am sure that I should tell the House that I am a grower, farmer and landowner. I am a member of the NFU, the Farmers' Company and a number of agricultural societies and conservation bodies. I am also a member of the National Trust, which owns substantial areas adjacent to the coast. My wife is and has been for the past 20 years the Lincolnshire County Council member for Holbeach, which includes the large expanse of Holbeach marsh, which stretches for many miles out into the Wash. It is an area that I have known well since childhood.
	I thank the Minister for moving the amendments. It is clear from the addition of my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart to them that they have our support. I am very grateful to the Minister and his officials for what he said constructively with us and other noble Lords during the past few weeks. I may add very little that is new to the general view of other noble Lords in this debate but, as the Minister explained, the amendments cover several important aspects of the MMO and it is right that the Opposition's voice is added in their support.
	We are very glad that the Government have taken our concerns about the scientific basis for the MMO's decision-making seriously. The addition of a chief scientific adviser is a great step forward, as is the stated duty in Clause 2 to base decisions on fact. We hope that the amendments will benefit the MMO by ensuring that it has sufficient in-house expertise for the often difficult decisions that it will be called on to make, and will make those decisions based on fact. The appointment of the chief scientific adviser will also, I hope, act as a figurehead for the development of marine science generally. We all seek to establish government bodies on as professional and effective a footing as possible. We see the amendments as an important step towards that goal.
	My noble friend Lord Kingsland has two amendments in the group. The Government's response owes much to the way in which he has contributed to and articulated the argument for the changes in Committee. I will leave it to the Minister to respond to my noble friend's amendments.
	The other amendments in the group are also extremely welcome and go a long way towards addressing our concerns about the drafting of Clause 2. The Government have also decided that legislative consistency means that they cannot accept "furthering or promoting sustainable development" in the MMO's duties, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the new power to further the three pillars of sustainable development will be critical to ensure that the MMO can make a real difference to our marine environment. As we have said, the MMO must not be just another quango in a sector already clogged with them. It needs to be a genuinely effective body with real teeth.
	Finally, the amendments ensuring that the Secretary of State's guidance on what is meant by sustainable development will be laid before Parliament are also extremely welcome. I am sure that not only Parliament but those implementing the policy will welcome the increased transparency and clarity. I again thank the Minister for listening to the House's concerns and congratulate him on bringing back amendments that address so many of our concerns. I hope that the rest of our proceedings can continue in an equally productive fashion.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I will declare my interests before speaking to this part of the Bill. I am vice-president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; former chief executive of the Environment Agency; former chairman of the predecessor to Natural England, English Nature; president of the Wildlife Trust and president of the British Trust for Ornithology.
	I feel a bit like some sort of party-pooper, after the outbreak of harmony and congratulations that has gone around the Chamber. I am sorry to bring a discordant note but I am afraid that I have to. However, let me start on a good note and commend the Government's amendment on the chief scientific advisor. The points on full-time work made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, were very well made.
	I think that the Minister would quite rightly expect me to fall away from him on Amendments 7 and 8. The statement about the MMO's primary objective fails what I call the "small green man from Mars test"—that is, if a small green man arrived from Mars and read the provision, would he have a clue what on earth this body was there for? The provision continues to fail the "small green man from Mars test". Not only does it say that the primary objective of the MMO is a duty,
	"to secure that the MMO functions are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO's area is managed, regulated or controlled",
	it goes on to say:
	"with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development".
	"With the objective of making a contribution" could involve an extremely small contribution. At some point the Government must get off the treadmill of having to perpetuate this definition because it exists in previous legislation, and move on to the more sensible one of asking these organisations, in language understandable by a small man from Mars, to "further" the achievements of sustainable development. It is a very simple statement that we should be expecting of all public bodies.
	After all, what is sustainable development? That is where I would differ on Amendment 8—the one where, cunningly, the word "furthering" does appear. The amendment states:
	"furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes".
	The whole point of sustainability is that it is not about social, economic or environmental purposes; it is about trying to achieve solutions that deliver on all three of these.
	I would place a rather large wager—that is probably improper in your Lordships' House—to see whether the Minister could come up with any human endeavour whatever that does not fall into the category of either social, economic or environmental. I think he would be hard-pressed to find one. This amendment says that the MMO,
	"may take any action which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of",
	doing anything that it should. So I am not convinced that we have made huge progress. I think that the Government need to get off this treadmill of the historic definition of what we expect our public bodies to do in order to further sustainable development, being so hideously tortuous and flabby that it is not understandable in any commonly understood sense of the word.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we were going well until the noble Baroness spoke at the end. However, I have been well aware of her views, and I appreciate the meetings that I had with her between Committee and Report.
	Overall, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for their general welcome for the amendments—to some of which other noble Lords have put their names. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, both for his chairmanship of the Joint Committee and for the way that he has helped us to understand some of the problems with the original wording of Clause 2. Although it was probably technically correct, it struggled to get to the core to what the MMO is all about. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, thinks that we have not got there, but I think that we have made considerable progress.
	As for the treadmill and the tortuous drafting, I go back to our debate in Committee. I was a bit worried when the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that we were edging towards a definition of sustainability, but I will hold my nose and urge noble Lords to accept the government amendments. He will know that the reason for not defining sustainable development is that our understanding of what is sustainable is continually evolving.
	The UK Administrations have adopted the five shared principles, which set out a broad framework of sustainability: to live within environmental limits; to achieve a just society; to do so by means of a sustainable economy; good governance; and sound science. Those five principles have been expressed in our high-level objectives for the UK marine area. My amendment underpins that understanding of sustainable development in a way that can exist in legislation and which I hope will make clear to the MMO what is required, with the help of guidance and—again as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has suggested—with the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. He is right to say that it is very rare indeed for your Lordships' House to reject a statutory instrument, but the fact that an SI has to come before Parliament ensures that very great care is taken before any SI is laid before your Lordships' House. Clearly the same will be the case for the guidance to the MMO. The Government will listen very carefully to what Parliament has to say about the guidance; indeed, we would not move this amendment if that was not the intention.
	Again, I welcome the welcome given to Amendment 5 by noble Lords who have spoken. It must be considered in relation to the commitment that I made in Committee that a science advisory committee will be established; the two go together. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and other noble Lords, wished me to say something about the status of the chief scientific adviser and to say whether the appointment would be full-time. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and give an absolute guarantee that, for all time, the chief scientific adviser will be a full-time appointment because there might be circumstances in which that did not happen. However, I hope that I can answer the substantive questions: will this person be senior within the MMO, and will they be able to make a significant contribution to the work of the MMO? I have no hesitation whatever in saying yes. The very fact that this appointment appears in statute is a visible indication of that importance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has huge experience in this area. My experience of the role of chief scientific advisers in a number of government departments in which I have now served leads me to say to your Lordships that the appointment of chief scientific advisers has been a huge advance in Whitehall in the advice that Ministers have received. In my experience, chief scientific advisers have ready access to Ministers, and their views and guidance are listened to very carefully. I expect the chief scientific adviser to the MMO to have the same kind of relationship. I am very happy to make that point this afternoon.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I asked my question to try to establish what sort of commitment there was, obviously, but also to wonder whether someone involved in scientific research in other fields would be excluded from being appointed. It was nearly a double question; maybe I did not express it quite well enough. I would hate to think that somebody who would fulfil the role extremely well was employed somewhere else and was therefore unable to be considered. I was searching for that.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I really do not see why that should not be possible, if it were considered appropriate. I cannot go much further, but we would want the MMO to have discretion in that regard. It clearly needs to be able to appoint people or a person of the highest calibre and I would not want a situation such as the noble Baroness raises to get in the way of that. Equally, I am sure that we would want to be assured that the person appointed had the time and the ability to do what might be a very demanding job. To take the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, there is a great deal of research to be done and scientific evidence that we still need to have on the marine environment, so I would have thought that whoever was appointed would have not only a very important job but a busy one.
	On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we intend there to be not micromanagement but simply an appropriate check and balance on how the organisation might wish to go on with the terms and conditions that the schedule lays out. In view of recent events relating to salaries paid in quangos, while one wants to avoid micromanagement, one wishes to ensure appropriate accountability. The noble Baroness should not read anything more than that into it.
	I may have been too quick to shake my head when my noble friend said that I had used the word "opinion". I apologise to him; I thought that he was referring to Amendment 9, whereas I used the word in relation to Amendment 18. However, I want to reassure him that that is not any old opinion but one that has been expressed after consideration of the evidence. I was speaking about opinion in that context, rather than saying, as he might have inferred, that any old opinion from anybody might have equal weight.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has a great deal of experience and has raised an important matter about how green planning integrates with other development plans, including those on the land. She referred to the overlap. I hope to reassure her that, during the detailed process of developing marine plans, plan authorities will be under a legal obligation to secure compatibility with other plans that overlap, are adjacent to or have some relevance to marine plans—including river basin and shoreline management plans and terrestrial plans—thereby facilitating integration. That will, clearly, require the plan authorities to work with other regulators, planning bodies and Administrations. We expect the MMO to build sound relationships with terrestrial planners, local authorities and regional planning bodies. I can reassure her that we are working closely with the Local Government Association, regional planning bodies and the Department of Communities and Local Government to see how that relationship might work and, indeed, what lessons we might learn from terrestrial planning. Marine plans in coastal areas will often slightly overlap with the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities. Different kinds of plans in coastal areas already overlap, so this is not a new issue. I am confident that together we can make it work.
	We have already discussed devolution. Just as I have overall been encouraged by the approach taken by the devolved Administrations wishing to make this work together in an area that is partly the responsibility of the UK Government and partly the responsibility of the devolved Administrations, I have been encouraged, too, by the approach of local authorities, which are equally committed to making this work. However, I take the noble Baroness's point and I will make sure that this is given due consideration within my department and CLG. We will explore it further with the Local Government Association.
	I turn to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Perhaps I may say how relieved we are that, although he has ceased to be chairman of one body, he is now chairman of the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership. I pay tribute to the case that he made in Committee about science. He says that he is reassured that we see science as one of the underlying principles of sustainable development. I should also make it clear that we believe that the MMO needs to pursue an evidence-based approach to all its decision-making. As a decision-maker, the MMO is under a duty to take into account all relevant facts and matters, including those listed in new subsection (1B). It must also attach the appropriate weight to the different facts and matters taken into account.
	The type of evidence that the MMO will need to take into account will depend on the individual circumstances of each case and we have expanded on the kinds of matters that may be taken into account in Amendment 9. This should not be seen as an exhaustive list. Clearly, what is relevant in any particular case must be for the MMO to determine. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked the point of stipulating these matters and what weight they should be given. The fact is that putting these considerations in the Bill must in itself clearly give significant weight. The problem in the wording of the noble Lord's amendment is that not everything will be relevant in every case. Our worry is about imposing a disproportionately onerous obligation on the MMO.
	The noble Lord's second point was about the use of the word "appropriate" as opposed to "relevant" in proposed new paragraph (c). We see our wording as allowing slightly wider discretion to cover anything that the MMO might take into account. Something might be of relevance, but of peripheral relevance, and might not be appropriate. We do not think that the distinction between the terms indicates a significant difference of approach, although I am not sure that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on that. He will understand the spirit in which I have tabled these amendments and why there should be some discretion, but I am happy to look into the detail to convince myself that we have got it absolutely right. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the noble Lord between Report and Third Reading.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said about the general approach to Clause 2, in particular the enhanced role that the Government have now given science in a number of respects, for which the House owes him a great debt of gratitude.
	With great respect to the Minister, I suggest that the right approach by the Government to Amendment 9, which I do not think they have got quite right, is to make the distinction between relevance and weight. That is a classic planning approach, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would underline. While I foresee circumstances in which the Government might not wish to give any weight to a relevant matter, to introduce the word "appropriate" simply confuses things. However, he has kindly said—to reassure his own interpretation of Amendment 9, which the Government have advanced—that he will give it further thought between now and Third Reading. I am content to leave the matter for the present.
	Amendment 5 agreed.
	Amendment 6
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	6: Schedule 1, page 217, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	"(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not—
	(a) prevent the MMO from exercising the function itself, or
	(b) affect the power of the MMO to authorise an employee of the MMO to carry out functions of the MMO."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in the spirit of the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on a previous amendment, when he said that the Committee should continue in a productive manner, I am now hopeful that I can bring the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, into this virtuous circle. Amendment 6 is a response to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made in Committee when he asked how paragraph 20(3) of Schedule 1 was intended to work in practice. He raised this on the first day and I am grateful to him because we said at the time that he had made a significant point, and that we wanted to look again at the paragraph. The result of the Government's consideration is Amendment 6.
	It should now be clear from the government amendment and the revised paragraph 20 that the MMO can indeed authorise a committee, sub-committee, member or employee to exercise any MMO function. The power is capable of repeated exercise, so if the MMO wanted, for example, to authorise a different committee to exercise a function, it could do so under that provision. Sub-paragraph (3) makes it clear that the MMO can still exercise that function itself, or get an employee to do it, notwithstanding the delegation of that function under sub-paragraph (1). In considering this amendment, we have looked at paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. We have based our drafting in this Bill on the provision in that Act. I hope we have, through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who drew the attention of the Government and the House to this issue, clarified this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Government for the amendment. If I remember rightly, we discussed this at some inordinate length in Committee, probably late into the night. At the time I thought that I was having great difficulty in getting my point through to the Government, but clearly they were listening. The problem was that, as the paragraph was originally drafted, it was possible to delegate to two different committees at the same time, which could clearly cause confusion. I am very grateful to the Government for looking at it again, and for the common-sense and practical solution that they have found. Well done.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this government amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for being the stimulus for its conception. It all seems to make sense and accords with our approach to the Bill.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am of course grateful to both noble Lords. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that, even late at night, if the Government's eyes look glazed and it looks as though their ears may not be listening, we always have eyes and ears, particularly for any amendment that he is moving, whatever the time. Here is proof positive.
	Amendment 6 agreed.
	Amendments 7 and 8
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	7: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development (see subsections (1A) and (3) to (7)),
	(b) taking account of all relevant facts and matters (see subsection (1B)), and
	(c) in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated (see subsection (8))."
	8: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
	"(1A) In pursuit of its general objective, the MMO may take any action which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes."
	Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.
	Amendment 9
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	9: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
	"(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the facts and matters that may be taken into account include each of the following—
	(a) scientific evidence, whether available to, or reasonably obtainable by, the MMO;
	(b) other evidence so available or obtainable relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development;
	(c) such facts or matters not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) as the MMO may consider appropriate.
	See also section 23 (powers of MMO in relation to research)."
	Amendments 10 and 11 (to Amendment 9) not moved.
	Amendment 9 agreed.
	Amendment 12
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	12: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) In pursuit of its general objective, the MMO shall endeavour to work closely with coastal communities."

Lord Greaves: Amendment 12 picks up on a point that we discussed in Committee which was not very satisfactorily resolved. It concerns the question of the MMO's relationship with coastal communities. We propose:
	"In pursuit of its general objective, the MMO shall endeavour to work closely with coastal communities".
	This was part of a much broader amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Tyler. I want to thank my noble friend for the work he put into this during the Committee stage on the days when I was not able to be here because I was otherwise engaged on another Bill. My noble friend has departed this life as far as this Bill is concerned and is now active on the Political Parties and Elections Bill. In Committee he said that he hoped the Minister would accept that the amendment would cover a "lacuna in the Bill". I had to look up the word because I thought it had something to do with the lady of Laguna, but it turned out not to; I think my noble friend just meant that there is a gap. It is very important that the MMO works in close co-operation and, it is hoped, harmony or at least full and frank discussion, with coastal communities.
	We have noted several times that the MMO is unusual for a quango or body with a strong environmental element in that it deals with an area where there are no people. Most related organisations cover areas of the land where people live, work and play. That is not so clearly the case with the sea. Clearly, people work and play on and in the sea, but they do not live there permanently—except along the coast. Where the sea meets the land is a crucial element of our discussions on the whole of the marine aspect of the legislation and the work of the MMO. It is extremely important that the MMO should work closely both with those living on the coast and their representatives.
	My noble friend made these points as part of a much longer debate that looked at many of the issues covered by the large group of amendments to Clause 2. It is clear from Hansard that he could not get any satisfactory answers, and the reason for tabling a further amendment today is to raise the issue again and hope that we can be given some today. Of course, parts of the Bill refer to different aspects of the work of the MMO as they relate to the coast and coastal communities while other parts, such as those dealing with IFCAs, relate to communities on the coast as much as they do to the sea. However, we propose that it should be a fundamental principle that people living and working on the coast have to be recognised early on in the Bill at this high-level stage of setting up the MMO and setting out its objectives. If the MMO is not going to work closely with coastal communities, it will get itself into very serious trouble because it will not be able to do what it has to do. This should be in the Bill as a general principle. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. First I declare the interests that I declared in Committee: I am a member of various wildlife trusts, a member of the North Devon Yacht Club and vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. My husband is a member of the Devon sea fisheries committee and a member of the Environment Agency coastal management group for the Bristol Channel area.
	I support what my noble friend said. Having reread the debate in Committee, I think there is a principle that the Government still need to put into the Bill; perhaps the Minister will tell me differently. The inshore sea area that the MMO will be responsible for—I think the far offshore area will be far less contentious—can be likened to common land. Some people have an economic interest in it, while some have an environmental interest and there is no owner, except that the Crown Estate owns the seabed. However, those coastal communities have, in many cases, worked over years to find a way forward. I am thinking, as the Minister knows, of estuary forums, where competing interests have had to be dealt with, some of which we discussed in Committee, such as recreational interests, say, and shellfish interests. Unless this is recognised in the Bill, all the positive work that coastal communities have done in balancing those different interests in the marine area will be lost. Unless the MMO is brought into that work very fundamentally, in statute, it will be an enormous backward step and those interests could start to compete with each other again. That will send different views to the MMO, making its life much more difficult. That is why I feel strongly that we should recognise the importance not of the statutory bodies, which we will talk about later—my noble friend Lady Hamwee will talk, for example, about the role of statutory local authorities—but of the more ephemeral idea of coastal communities, to which this amendment refers.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, makes an understandable point by moving this amendment and the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has the same relevance. Much of what the MMO seeks to achieve is, of course, of great interest to coastal communities, whether we are talking about harbours, fishing or seaside leisure. The prosperity of these communities will depend on them having good liaison and dialogue with the MMO. So obvious is this, however, that I am not sure that it is a necessary element to include at this early stage of the Bill—there are places later in the Bill where it may be more relevant.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for allowing us to debate what might be described as coastal communities. I recall the debate in Committee and the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. When we were in Committee, we had a clash with the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill and we now have a clash with the Political Parties and Elections Bill. At one time I thought I might, as a Ministry of Justice Minister, be taking it through, but we have moved on to higher things with the marine Bill.
	Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I have no argument with noble Lords in their emphasis on the importance of coastal communities. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, when he talked about the need for harmony but, if you cannot have harmony, at least have a full and frank debate. I agree with his point about the interface between the people living along the coast, the sea itself and the interests of people living in coastal areas. My concern is the implications of putting this in the Bill. It is the "list" argument: if you put something in legislation, you are in danger of excluding other interests. The amendment would amend the critically important Clause 2. The government amendments that we have agreed with the support of the House are, in a sense, the high-level duties and objectives. It would not be appropriate to add "endeavour to work closely with coastal communities".
	It is, however, relevant to ask me how the MMO intends to work with the communities that noble Lords have spoken so eloquently about. Noble Lords will be aware of the vision for coastal management that my department has published recently entitled A Strategy for Promoting an Integrated Approach to the Management of Coastal Areas in England. The strategy makes it clear that we place a great deal of emphasis on the need to empower coastal communities. We want them to have a sense of ownership and stewardship within marine and coastal areas, and we think that that will greatly assist the MMO in the delivery of its functions and the overall objective of making a contribution to sustainable development. We think that marine planning will offer new opportunities for coastal regulators and communities to have a say in the way the marine environment is managed in the same way that they input now into land planning on the coast. Further, the statement of public participation issued by the MMO at the outset of development of each marine plan, which we might debate again, sets out how it intends to involve stakeholders and local communities at each stage. That will ensure that those with an interest will be clear about the process, decide what involvement they want to have and be able to become appropriately involved.
	I have no disagreement with noble Lords in their desire to ensure that coastal communities have a major input into the deliberations of the MMO and the way it works, but we have great reservations about singling out coastal communities and putting them into the Bill in Clause 2 in the way that the noble Lord has suggested.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful for some of the things the Minister said and his commitments about how coastal communities will be involved. I was surprised by his use of the "list" argument. I am not sure which other items he thinks might be in the list. We are talking about the people who live in the coastal regions and along the coast. I do not consider that those people are just part of a list; they are pretty fundamental. I do not think that that argument applies; I am proposing not a list but something fundamental about the MMO's objectives and how it carries them out. It should work closely with coastal communities.
	The Minister said that this part of the Bill is about high-level duties. Working with coastal communities is a high-level duty. I am not saying that this amendment is perfect; if the Government do not like the words, I would be delighted if they went away and produced their own. Words are words. What matters is the meaning underneath those words, and that is what I am putting forward today.
	I agree that the vision for coastal management—the integrated strategy—is an interesting, positive and hopeful document. I agree very much that there should be a sense of ownership and stewardship by coastal communities of what the Marine Management Organisation is doing in the inshore waters that affect them. That as why we are proposing this amendment. I do not understand why the Minister is resisting it being in the Bill since he is actually saying that he agrees with the intention behind it in almost every respect. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
	Division on Amendment 12 called. Division called off after three minutes due to lack of support for the Contentswhen the Question was put a second time.
	Amendment 12 disagreed.
	Amendments 13 to 18
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	13: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (2)
	14: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out "(1)(b)" and insert "(1)(a)"
	15: Clause 2, page 2, leave out from end of line 26 to end of line 28 and insert "(and see also section 36 (guidance))."
	16: Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
	"(5A) A draft of any guidance proposed to be given under this section is to be laid before each House of Parliament.
	(5B) Guidance is not to be given under this section until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with—
	(a) the day on which a draft of the guidance is so laid, or
	(b) if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the two days.
	(5C) If, within that period, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be given, the Secretary of State must not give that guidance.
	(5D) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (5B) or (5C), no account is to be taken of any time during which—
	(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
	(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
	17: Clause 2, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, any guidance given to the MMO under this section."
	18: Clause 2, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
	"(8) In this section—
	"consistent and co-ordinated" includes taking into account the effect (if any) that decisions in respect of—
	(a) any particular part of the MMO's area, or
	(b) the carrying on of any activity within that area,
	will have on any other part of that area or the carrying on of any other activity in that area;
	"evidence" includes predictions and other opinions resulting from the consideration of evidence by any person;
	"the MMO's area" means those parts of the UK marine area, or of the United Kingdom, where MMO functions are exercisable;
	"MMO functions" means functions exercisable by or on behalf of the MMO."
	Amendments 13 to 18 agreed.
	Clause 3 : Performance
	Amendment 19
	 Moved by Lord Bridges
	19: Clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) These objectives should include the protection of items of archaeological interest on the seabed."

Lord Bridges: My Lords, Amendment 19 incorporates the care of archaeological articles found on the seabed among the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. I should explain that I am not a professional archaeologist in any sense. My interest was first aroused when, as a student at Oxford, the all-embracing curriculum of the school of modern history was described in the university statutes as:
	"The history of Britain from the beginning to the present day".
	My own special study was devoted to more recent history, in particular, the origins of the First World War, which was totally absorbing. However, there was some archaeology involved in the Anglo-Saxon and Roman periods of British history and subsequently I have belonged to the county archaeological societies of the three counties in which I have come to live: Surrey, Sussex and latterly Suffolk, where I have settled permanently on retirement.
	It so happens that one of my Suffolk neighbours in Orford, Mr Stuart Bacon, is seriously interested in locating treasures under the sea. He actually spent his career in the Royal Air Force, but he has opened a small museum in our village called Suffolk Underwater Studies. Some years ago, he located the wreck of a Spanish warship close inshore, which had got lost on the way home after its defeat in the Spanish Armada. The wreck included a rare 16th century Spanish cannon. With some difficulty, Mr Bacon raised this to the surface and transported it to his museum. It was too large to go through the door, so he chained it securely to the structure and began negotiations with the authorities in London so as to locate a national naval museum to which he could present it.
	While this was going on, at 7.30 one morning a convoy of official government vehicles arrived with a team who cut the chain and removed the cannon. I thought this to be an extremely rude, even high-handed, action and raised this matter at Question Time in this House on 14 March 2001, at cols. 841-2 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the Government agreed that the Royal Armouries did send a trailer and cut the chain, but there was no apology. More recently, I have been informed that the Crown Estate is now issuing licences for the extraction of aggregate within the 12-mile territorial limit. The official letter informing of this said:
	"Surveys are carried out before dredging but...surveys often miss an ancient wreck"
	This seems a somewhat haphazard procedure.
	I also wish to draw attention to a significant recent development; namely, the discovery of an important British wreck in the Channel. This was evidently HMS "Victory", launched in 1737. It is a major discovery. Previously it had been believed that the ship had come to grief close to the Channel Islands but the remains of the ship lie further west, scattered over a wide area and her fate now lies in the hands of the Disposal Services Authority, part of the Ministry of Defence. The ministry have a contract with an American company, Odyssey, which will dispose of the proceeds and might share some of them with the Ministry of Defence. Odyssey has American shareholders and is registered in New York. The contract should include archaeological supervision by the British Government but I do not know that that has happened. However, these arrangements do not comply with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which came into force in January 2009.
	Meanwhile, it seems likely that the fate of the valuable contents may be determined by the American courts. Among the items included in the cargo are apparently four tonnes of gold coins. This is the most important naval wreck to be discovered in recent years. Evidently, it is more important than HMS "Mary Rose", which attracted much public attention a few years ago.
	For a fuller account of this remarkable event, I refer noble Lords to the current issue of British Archaeology—the issue for May/June—which is published by the Council for British Archaeology. I subscribe to that magazine and have arranged for photocopies of the most important pages to be available in our excellent Library, which is not a subscriber. I think that noble Lords will find it compelling reading, and I strongly recommend that Ministers responsible for the Bill study the article carefully as it will give them much food for thought. In particular, it would appear that the current commercial arrangement with Odyssey may conflict with the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.
	The amendment in my name is intended to give political responsibility for issues as significant as these to the Minister in charge of the department—that well known if elusive personality, the Secretary of State. I suggest this because I believe that the issues involved are so large that the Minister in charge of the department should play a leading role in reaching decisions. The record to date, which I have cited, suggests that there has been little or no consideration of these issues at the political level. That is what I believe should happen in the future and that is the purpose of my amendment.
	I suggest that the Government would do well to consider these major issues before proceeding to the last stages of the Bill before us. I trust, therefore, that the Government will take a short period to reconsider the future of the Bill. Pending their reconsideration, I do not propose to press my amendment to a vote at present. I also suggest to the Government that there are other possible ways are proceeding. The first might be to recast the Bill in its entirety so that it concentrates on the issue of coastal paths, which seems to be its main political purpose. The remainder could certainly be put off until another day. We have already had a useful and thorough debate about the footpaths detail, so that would not be wasted.
	Alternatively, it might be decided to examine the whole issue of underwater treasure more thoroughly. Clearly, this is an important topic which Her Majesty's Government have not been able to concentrate on so far. I also venture that the creation of the administrative machinery to cope with the Bill in its present form will constitute a burden on the Exchequer which currently it is in no position to absorb. I shall await the Government's response with keen attention. Meanwhile, I repeat my request that the Minister should study the current issue of the magazine British Archaeology. Evidently, the Government have not had access to it so far. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that I have no relevant interests to declare, but—just in case—I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Arts and Heritage and on Archaeology.
	I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said in drawing attention to his amendment. I also attribute considerable importance to this area of our cultural heritage. In saying that, I should like to refer to a splendid document called Archaeology Enriches Us All, which, among other things, states:
	"Archaeology is key to understanding an irreplaceable store of human history, most with no written record and sometimes highly vulnerable".
	That is particularly true of the marine environment.
	I am glad to hear that the noble Lord does not intend to press the amendment today because the Government, in tabling Amendments 82 and 111 in this group, have acknowledged the importance of this area and have—dare I say it?—taken on board amendments tabled earlier by an all-party alliance comprising the noble Lords, Lord Howarth of Newport and Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and myself. The issue was discussed also by other noble Lords with considerable expertise and knowledge who are not able to be here today to record their agreement to the government amendments.
	I am very happy to acknowledge that, in Amendments 82 and 111, the Government have met many if not most of the concerns expressed in Committee. If it were not for these two amendments, there would be no explicit provision or requirement for marine plan authorities to keep historic or archaeological features under review, nor would there be any provision insisting that the authorities designating marine conservation zones have regard to the consequences for any sites in the area that are of historic or archaeological interest. However many times it is said that the Bill's main emphasis is to protect the natural environment, and however often we are asked to wait patiently for the heritage protection Bill—which may or may not be mentioned in next year's Queen's Speech—we nevertheless now have a specific reference point that enables a read-across to relevant existing legislation and to any future legislation which ties in our historic and cultural heritage, and marine archaeology considerations, with the new organisation and zoning arrangements created by the Bill.
	The recently published high-level marine objectives document entitled Our Seas—A Shared Resource uses the word "heritage" eight times, "archaeology" once and "seascape" three times. In the document originally put out for consultation, "heritage" was used on only four occasions and "archaeology" and "seascape" not once. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, should be reassured by the fact that "archaeology" is included not only in the Bill but in high-level documents published outside the House. The final document also includes definitions of marine cultural heritage and seascape which we may hear a little more about later on Report.
	I thank the Minister and all those behind the scenes who have taken part in the discussions that have led to this happy state of affairs. I wish to mention specifically the Defra Minister in another place and the various NGOs, particularly English Heritage, whose input and support have been very significant. This is an important Bill and it should be as comprehensive as possible. As has been said, we send this Bill to another place in a better state. I thank the Government for listening.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I wonder whether it might be useful if I spoke now to the government amendments and responded to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. If I do, I will not be able to speak again, although I might be able to refer back with the leave of the House. Shall I do that? I think it would be helpful to the House to have more information about the government amendments.

Baroness Hooper: I apologise, my Lords. I was far too impetuous.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not at all, my Lords.
	I am very glad that the Government are able to bring forward amendments on an undoubtedly important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, have already indicated why it is important that the MMO gives due consideration to these matters. The noble Baroness has already referred to the Government's high-level marine objectives of 20 April which make it clear that people should appreciate the diversity of the marine environment, including its natural and cultural heritage. Let me make it clear that these high-level objectives underpin the development of the marine policy statement, which will then be applied in more detail in specific areas via the marine plans. So the high-level marine objective is important, which is why the references which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made to heritage and seascapes can be taken through the whole process that the Bill brings into play.
	I also make it clear that the kind of specific and comprehensive heritage protection that both noble Lords have intimated they would like to see deserves its own legislation. I know that there is disappointment that the Government have not yet been able to bring forward the heritage protection Bill in this parliamentary Session. However, we remain committed to that legislation and believe that it is the right vehicle for the comprehensive and vital protection of our historic, cultural and archaeological heritage.
	With that in mind, I have carefully considered our debate in Committee. We have had the opportunity to talk to colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. While we are not prepared to widen the scope of the Bill, we are clear that the provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill should complement future heritage protection legislation. On reflection, while the Bill allows cultural heritage to be taken into account in decision-making, I believe that some references could be strengthened.
	I turn to my amendments before responding to that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Amendment 82 seeks to clarify that the reference to culture in Clause 52(2)(a) includes historic and archaeological characteristics. The amendment essentially makes it clear that the historic and archaeological characteristics should be considered in the identification of marine plan areas and in the preparation and review of marine plans.
	Amendment 111—which I have tabled to Clause 114, in Part 5—is similarly intended to clarify that any social consequences referenced in subsection (7) include historic and archaeological consequences, so the Secretary of State may therefore take into account the historic and archaeological consequences of marine conservation's own site designations. I understand that noble Lords want to ensure that we are not only recognising and considering heritage in marine planning licensing and nature conservation, but that management of marine conservation zones will not undermine the work of bodies such as English Heritage which are tasked with protecting wrecks and other historic features.
	I therefore reassure noble Lords that the Government are extremely committed to ensuring that the nature conservation provisions are compatible with the vital licensing and management work carried out by English Heritage in the preservation of historic wrecks within UK waters.
	I draw the attention of the House to Clause 125(5), which specifically enables the MMO to make by-laws that allow for the issuing of permits under controlled circumstances. We expect that such permits will include the licensing of activities for the preservation or investigation of wrecks as well as permitting access to such sites. The MMO will be working closely with bodies such as English Heritage to agree this process, and this relationship is likely to be formalised through a memorandum of understanding, which will clarify how these respective roles will work effectively and efficiently to recognise both nature conservation and heritage interests. The amendments that I will move make a clear commitment to recognising our vital marine cultural heritage.
	Let me address the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I was interested in his views and comments on HMS "Victory", but I was somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that we should simply not deal with those aspects of the Bill that do not relate to coastal access. After our 11 days in Committee, this House is well able to come to a view on the totality of the Bill.
	The amendment proposes that the objectives that the Secretary of State may set for the MMO should include the protection of items of archaeological interest on the seabed. As I have set out, in seeking to achieve its objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, the MMO will be guided by the policies of the marine policy statement and, ultimately, by marine plans. This means that archaeological protection will be one of the many factors taken into account by the MMO when it is making decisions, so it is unnecessary to include this specific requirement in Clause 3. It will be a familiar argument to noble Lords that to do so would actually unbalance the MMO's objective and imply that this factor is more important than other factors. The amendment would widen the focus of the MMO and the Bill beyond what we think is best both for the Bill and for future heritage protection legislation.
	Although I do not think that Part 1 is the appropriate place to reference archaeology, heritage can be considered in the drafting of marine plans, in the licensing of marine activities and in considering the social and economic consequences of marine conservation zone designations within 12 nautical miles. I stress that, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UK cannot make legislation for the protection of archaeological and historical objects beyond 12 nautical miles, except where naval vessels and other vessels owned or operated by a state and used only on government non-commercial service are concerned.
	Clause 112(2), when read with Clause 66(1)(a), clearly provides that the marine licensing authority must have regard to the protection of any site that is of historic or archaeological interest when considering applications for a marine licence. Although we will not be able to license the removal of underwater cultural heritage directly beyond 12 nautical miles—we will be using the exemptions order in Clause 72 to ensure that we are compliant with the UN convention in this regard—this will provide some significant protection to wrecks beyond 12 nautical miles from other types of licensable marine activities that could otherwise damage such sites.
	In line with the marine licensing provisions, and following reflection on our debate in Committee, marine planning and nature conservation powers can be strengthened in the way in which my amendments seek to do. While I suspect that the amendments do not go as far as the noble Lord would like, I think that they meet the general concerns that were expressed in Committee. I hope that this explanation at this point in our discussion will be helpful.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being so keen to rise to support the amendments, as many noble Lords around the Chamber are. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing the amendment and I thank the Minister for speaking to his amendments in the group to address a concern that was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Hooper with our support. I am extremely glad that the ongoing conversation between the Minister and interested Peers has found a way forward and that the House has persuaded the Government of the importance of ensuring that the powers in the Bill can be used to protect these sites. I do not share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the government amendments do not address his concern. The amendments have our support.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, the amendments that the Government have tabled, and the assurances that the Minister has just given the House, are extremely helpful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has noted, the government amendments make it clear that historic and archaeological characteristics can be considered in the preparation and review of marine plans and when considering the consequences of marine conservation zone designations. My noble friend has also again placed on record the Government's commitment to the protection of marine heritage and has stated that the nature conservation provisions of Clause 125(5) will be compatible with the licensing and management work that English Heritage carries out in the preservation of historic wrecks. His suggested memorandum of understanding between the MMO and English Heritage would be very useful if it clarifies their respective responsibilities. The only note of caution that I would strike is that, if we are to have by-laws passed by the Marine Management Organisation and licences issued by the DCMS, I hope that all concerned will do their best to ensure that there is the minimum of bureaucracy and complexity and that the system is navigable by the people who need to use it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, told the House that the context of these amendments and assurances is the new document that the Government have published, Our Seas—A Shared Resource: High-Level Marine Objectives. It is good to read in that document that among the high-level marine objectives is the conservation of the cultural marine heritage and to see definitions of "marine cultural heritage" and "seascapes". Following the assurance that my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham gave in Committee on 23 February, at col. 48, and what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said today, I am confident that the marine policy statement—the overarching statement of policy—will set out the Government's policy on safeguarding the marine environment, including the cultural and historic marine environment.
	The amendments and commitments give us the essence of what we have sought. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, there are problematic issues surrounding the conservation of the marine heritage beyond 12 nautical miles. In the extremely important case of HMS "Victory" described by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is the Minister in conversation with colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, which should have competence in this matter given that HMS "Victory" was a naval warship? I hope that the MoD is taking seriously its responsibility to ensure that a commercial and predatory firm of divers is not able to loot this extraordinarily important part of our naval heritage.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me answer the noble Lord's points in order. I confirm that he is right that the powers lie with the Ministry of Defence and, in the light of what he has said, I will make sure that we are in conversation with the MoD.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I thank him, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, Mr Huw Irranca-Davies and the ministerial team for being so accessible and willing to listen and for responding so constructively—I am most grateful to them. I also thank and congratulate English Heritage officials, who briefed a number of us with precision, lucidity and very good judgment.
	My final point has already been suggested by others. Could we please now have the heritage protection Bill? That would much more fairly and squarely deal with the important issues addressed with such eloquence and passion by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The debates that we have had on the heritage aspects of this Bill have been more anxious and uncertain than they would have been had the heritage protection Bill been proceeding in parallel through Parliament.
	This Bill is primarily about issues concerning the natural environment, whereas the heritage protection Bill is the appropriate primary vehicle for protection of the marine historic environment. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, there must be complementarity between the two, and I am grateful to Defra for the strenuous efforts that it has made to ensure that there is that complementarity. However, in the absence of what should have been the parallel Bill, the regime for which we are legislating will be lopsided.
	I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Hunt reaffirm that the Government remain committed to the heritage protection Bill, but why do we not have it? It has been frustrating to be told repeatedly that the House of Commons during the past several weeks has been twiddling its legislative thumbs without enough to do. We know that the heritage protection Bill has all-party support—at least, I am assured by senior, responsible people in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that they support the essence of the measure. It has had pre-legislative scrutiny. Why can we not, even now, at this late stage of the Session, bring it into the House of Lords, make some progress with it and, if we cannot complete scrutiny of it in this Session, carry it over to the next Session? As I understand it, there is no procedural objection. Of course, that would need to be agreed by the usual channels, but, given that everyone thinks that it is a valuable measure, what difficulty should there be?
	If we fail to do that, how will the heritage protection Bill get on the statute book? The next Session, the last of this Parliament, must be a short Session. It is difficult to be confident that the Bill would take its place in the first Session of the next Parliament, when it is all too liable to be crowded out by Bills emanating from big manifesto pledges. It would be a valuable thing to get it on the statute book. It would be enormously helpful for the heritage sector and local government. I hope that it will be possible for the usual channels to have constructive discussion about that and to agree that we should proceed with no further delay with the heritage protection Bill to support the now excellent heritage protection elements within the Marine and Coastal Access Bill.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, in speaking briefly to the amendments, I should declare an interest as chairman of the World Ship Trust, which is dedicated to encouraging the preservation of historic ships. I say "ships" rather than "wrecks", but we are nevertheless interested in what is brought forth from wrecks discovered under the sea. I agree in many ways with what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, just said. The proposed heritage protection Bill is certainly the right vehicle to deal with this subject, but I am delighted that the Government have made this concession in their amendments, which will at least act as a stop-gap until such time as the heritage protection Bill is brought forward.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting remarks and for the sympathetic attitude that he has shown to the subject. I should make it clear that under existing law—I refer in particular to HMS "Victory"—although HMS "Victory" was in international waters, the fact that it was a British vessel was recognised by all concerned, so we had the right to dispose of the remains of the ship in the way that we thought best. I was trying to suggest in that part of my remarks that no proper attention was devoted to that by the Government, who simply allowed the Ministry of Defence to sell it off for what it could get to the United States. That does not seem to me to be an appropriate treatment of the most historic wreck belonging to this country found for a very long time.
	I also suggest that, in the other legislation referred to, it would be helpful if more specific reference were made to exactly what we mean by the marine environment. For a lot of people, that will mean fish. The idea that there will be treasures down there that people are not free to raid needs to be explored. Living where I do, it is clear to me that there are a lot of foreign vessels snooping around our shores looking for what they can find. I have yet to see a vehicle from the Ministry of Defence or anyone else keeping an eye on what is going on. We do that where we are. There is an enormous gap before good intentions are transferred into something more concrete. That was my only motive in moving the amendment. I hope that we can be a little more specific; that would give a great deal of encouragement to those of us who care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 19 withdrawn.
	Clause 4: Licensing of fishing boats
	Amendment 20
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	20: Clause 4, page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in moving Amendment 20, I shall speak to several other amendments in the group. Noble Lords will see that they make substantive amendment to Clause 4. They partly result from agreement reached with Scottish Ministers to enable the Marine Management Organisation to enter into agency arrangements with Scottish Ministers in relation to reciprocal licensing of fishing vessels. That is another indication that a good working relationship has been established.
	The licensing of English fishing vessels operating out of Scottish ports and Scottish fishing vessels operating out of English ports is an administrative convenience currently undertaken on a reciprocal basis by Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, although, in practice, the Secretary of State's licensing function in England is carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, an executive agency of Defra. Unlike the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act has no provision enabling Scottish Ministers to enter into agency arrangements with any public body to exercise functions on their behalf. Specific provision for that is therefore required in the Bill to enable the Marine Management Organisation, as a non-departmental public body, to enter into those arrangements with Scottish Ministers to maintain the status quo.
	Consequential Amendments 20, 23 and 36 have been made to delete subsections (2), (7) and (8) and Clause 14(3)(b), which are no longer required. In addition, Amendment 23 replaces subsection (6) with new subsections (6) to (8) appropriately to convey the scope of the transitional provisions that may be required when the MMO comes into being. The clause provides that licences already granted by the Secretary of State will, once the Bill is commenced, be treated as having been granted by the MMO. The amendment ensures that the same principle applies to licences that have been varied, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State before the Bill is commenced; such licences will be treated as if varied, suspended or revoked by the MMO. Similarly, any application for a licence made to the Secretary of State that has not already been determined or withdrawn by the time that the MMO is established will be treated as an application to the MMO. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the amendments to Clause 4 envisage a high degree of flexibility in the licensing of fishing boats. It is good to hear the Minister explain that, because of the lack of this agency ability under the Scotland Act, he is bringing Scottish powers into line with those of all the other devolved Administrations. It is certainly a nice thought that Scottish fishing boats in England will be able to get a Scottish licence, as it is that English boats in Scotland will be able to get an English licence. The mind turns to how far flexibility can reach and whether that will have any relevance for Spanish boats that have obtained an English or Scottish quota licence. It might be interesting for the House to know whether the Minister can see such an arrangement being extended to other countries. Does that mean in effect that every skipper can just nominate from which authority he wishes to obtain a licence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke for that comment; he raises a very interesting point. Before I come to that, perhaps I could give the background to reciprocal licensing of fishing vessels. Normally, the port letters and numbers given to a fishing vessel on original registration remain with it for life. Thus the registration of a fishing vessel originally registered in Penzance will start with the letters PZ, while that of one registered in Peterhead will start with PH. In a similar way to car registration, the licence number of a fishing vessel remains the same when the vessel is sold on. Therefore, there are now a number of fishing boats that were originally registered in an English port but which now belong to Scottish owners and operate out of Scottish ports, and vice versa.
	From a practical point of view, it makes more sense for vessels to be administered and licensed by the port office close to the port out of which they fish. A Scottish vessel was defined in the devolution settlement as a fishing boat whose entry in the register specifies a port in Scotland as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging. I am sure that the noble Duke will remember our debating that point during the devolution Bill.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me the reference?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very good question, on which, alas, the noble Duke has found me short.
	Because of the way in which that was so defined, it is necessary for Scottish vessels, or those originally registered in Scotland, that operate out of English ports to be licensed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Scottish Ministers and for English vessels, or those whose original port of registration was in England, to be licensed by Scottish Ministers on behalf of the Secretary of State. This is a sensible approach; we just need to make sure that, in legislative terms, we can carry on doing it.
	The noble Duke asked about Spanish vessels rather than Spanish customs. This legislation is not a way in which we can encompass Spanish vessels in the licensing regime. They are licensed by the Spanish Government.
	Amendment 20 agreed.
	Amendments 21 to 23
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	21: Clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
	"(2) In subsection (1)(a) of that section (power by order to prohibit fishing unless authorised by a licence granted by one of the Ministers) the reference to one of the Ministers is to be read as including a reference to the MMO instead of a reference to the Secretary of State.
	(3) In the following provisions of that section—"
	22: Clause 4, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (11) of that section insert—
	"(11A) As respects any function under this section, other than a function of making an order,—
	(a) the Marine Management Organisation may make arrangements for the function to be exercised on its behalf by the Scottish Ministers, and
	(b) the Scottish Ministers may make arrangements for the function to be exercised on their behalf by the Marine Management Organisation.
	An arrangement under this subsection does not affect a person's responsibility for the exercise of the function.
	(11B) A person exercising a function on behalf of another by virtue of subsection (11A) above may charge that other such fees as the person considers reasonable in respect of the cost of doing so."."
	23: Clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out subsections (6) to (8) and insert—
	"(6) The grant, variation, revocation or suspension of a licence under that section by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section has effect as from the coming into force of this section as the grant, variation, revocation or suspension of the licence by the MMO.
	(7) Where a decision to grant, vary, revoke or suspend a licence under that section—
	(a) has been taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section, but
	(b) has not been notified in accordance with regulations under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (c. 84),
	the decision has effect as from the coming into force of this section as a decision taken by the MMO.
	(8) Where, before the coming into force of this section, an application for a licence under section 4 of that Act, or for the variation of such a licence,—
	(a) has been made to the Secretary of State or a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but
	(b) has not been determined or withdrawn,
	the application is to be treated as from the coming into force of this section as an application made to the MMO."
	Amendments 21 to 23 agreed.
	Clause 6: Trans-shipment licences for vessels
	Amendments 24 and 25
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	24: Clause 6, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (1) of that section (power by order to prohibit trans-shipping of fish unless authorised by a licence granted by one of the Ministers) the reference to one of the Ministers is to be read as including a reference to the MMO instead of a reference to the Secretary of State."
	25: Clause 6, page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	"(5) The grant, variation, revocation or suspension of a licence under that section by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section has effect as from the coming into force of this section as the grant, variation, revocation or suspension of the licence by the MMO.
	(5A) Where a decision to grant, vary, revoke or suspend a licence under that section—
	(a) has been taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section, but
	(b) has not been notified in accordance with regulations under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (c. 84),
	the decision has effect as from the coming into force of this section as a decision taken by the MMO.
	(5B) Where, before the coming into force of this section, an application for a licence under section 4A of that Act, or for the variation of such a licence,—
	(a) has been made to the Secretary of State or a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but
	(b) has not been determined or withdrawn,
	the application is to be treated as from the coming into force of this section as an application made to the MMO."
	Amendments 24 and 25 agreed.
	Clause 7: Regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A
	Amendment 26
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	26: Clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out "that section" and insert "section 4 or 4A of that Act (licensing of fishing boats and trans-shipment licences for vessels)"
	Amendment 26 agreed.
	Clause 9: Licences to kill or take seals
	Amendments 27 and 28
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	27: Clause 9, page 5, line 31, after "section" insert "in relation to the whole or any part of England or the English inshore region"
	28: Clause 9, page 5, line 32, after "determined" insert "or withdrawn"
	Amendments 27 and 28 agreed.
	Clause 10: Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
	Amendment 29
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	29: Clause 10, page 6, line 11, after "determined" insert "or withdrawn"
	Amendment 29 agreed.
	Clause 12: Certain consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989
	Amendments 30 to 32
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	30: Clause 12, page 6, line 30, leave out from "station" to "a" in line 34 and insert "that meets the requirements of subsections (3) and (3A).
	(3) The generating station must be in waters which are subject to regulation under section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20), other than—
	(a) any area of Scottish waters, or
	(b) any area of waters in a Scottish part of a Renewable Energy Zone.
	(3A) The generating station must have"
	31: Clause 12, page 6, line 40, after "function" insert "of the Secretary of State"
	32: Clause 12, page 7, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20)—
	"Renewable Energy Zone";
	"Scottish part", in relation to a Renewable Energy Zone;
	"Scottish waters"."
	Amendments 30 to 32 agreed.
	Clause 13: Safety zones: functions under section 95 of the Energy Act 2004
	Amendments 33 and 34
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	33: Clause 13, page 7, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) The functions of the Secretary of State specified in subsection (2) are transferred to the MMO."
	34: Clause 13, page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (8)
	Amendments 33 and 34 agreed.
	Clause 14: Agreements between the Secretary of State and the MMO
	Amendments 35 to 37
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	35: Clause 14, page 8, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert "a marine function exercisable by a person—
	(a) authorised or appointed by the Secretary of State, or
	(aa) employed in the civil service of the State (but see subsection (3A));"
	36: Clause 14, page 8, line 34, leave out paragraph (b)
	37: Clause 14, page 8, line 37, at end insert—
	"(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(aa), a person is not to be regarded as employed in the civil service of the State to the extent that the person is any of the following—
	(a) the holder of an office in the Scottish Administration which is not a ministerial office (within the meaning of section 51 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46));
	(b) a member of the staff of the Scottish Administration (within the meaning of that section);
	(c) a member of the staff of the Welsh Assembly Government (within the meaning of section 52 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32))."
	Amendments 35 to 37 agreed.
	Amendment 38
	 Moved by The Duke of Montrose
	38: Clause 14, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) A function which the Secretary of State requires the MMO to perform in a devolved area can only take place after consultation with the relevant devolved authority."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, Amendment 38 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I am consciously returning to a topic that was broached by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on our third day in Committee. His amendment was specifically concerned with the direction or guidance to be issued to the Marine Management Organisation, on which score he asked that consultation be held. In his answer, the Minister did not deny the need for consultation but merely relied on invoking normal good practice.
	This time, I have directed the amendment to deal with what I think is an even more critical area, which is where the Secretary of State authorises any marine functions to the MMO. This arises because, in his reply in Committee, the Minister expressly said:
	"The UK Government will legislate ... for the offshore waters around the UK and for certain functions within the territorial waters of Scotland".—[Official Report, 28/1/09; col. 276.]
	I notice from correspondence received a couple of hours ago from the Minister in another place that the Marine Management Organisation will be given certain functions within the Scottish inshore area and that some legislation coming from the MMO will apply in that area. It seems to me that one requires something beyond normal good practice to cover these situations and it would be clearer to all if that was stated on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken at this stage of the proceedings, so I declare interests from the Register in relation to renewable energy, including the chairmanship of the steering group of Marine Renewable Energy Development in Scotland, which is a working group under the auspices of the ICIT at Heriot-Watt University. Also relevant is my membership of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, set up by resolution of the Scottish Parliament and supported by Her Majesty's Government, which is looking at devolved/reserved boundaries; indeed, I think that today it was taking evidence from the Scottish Environment Link on the respective marine Bills that we and the Scottish Parliament are dealing with.
	I generally support the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. In Committee, we came back to the issue of devolved and reserved functions a number of times to try to pin down just which functions still remained the responsibility of UK Ministers and the MMO and would involve the Secretary of State or the MMO undertaking responsibilities in the Scottish inshore area. I do not think that we totally pinned them down. Defence is an obvious issue and international shipping and responsibilities for rights of passage would be another. In areas such as the Pentland Firth, where a considerable amount of renewable marine energy is anticipated, there could well be occasions when it was important to have proper co-ordination between Marine Scotland, as established by the Scottish Government, and the MMO. Therefore, it would be welcome to have some obligation beyond the normal courtesies to consult where there would be interaction in the Scottish inshore water in these circumstances. I think that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has raised an important point and I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for moving this amendment, which helps us to take the debate a little further on, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who certainly clarified the issues on which we need to concentrate relating to this aspect of the devolution settlement. Of course I fully understand their anxieties. They wish to ensure that, where the MMO could be required to undertake a function in a devolved area such as the Scottish inshore region, this should not happen without prior consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified not an exhaustive list of functions, but several clear areas where it might be necessary for the MMO, working on behalf of the Government in respect of UK-wide powers, to undertake a function within the inshore waters.
	We had some extensive discussions on the devolution issues during our earlier debates. I emphasise that, in preparing this Bill, the Government were concerned to secure the full support of all four Administrations. I want to assure the House that what we have in the Bill in this respect has the full support of those Administrations. We have not had representation from any of the Administrations that they want anything on the face of the Bill that gives additional expression to what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated would be good established practice. That is what the four Administrations are content with.
	I buttress this remark by giving a full assurance that the Secretary of State will not permit the MMO to operate within the devolved Administrations' inshore regions without prior consultation with the appropriate Ministers or Administration. It goes without saying that this is best practice for neighbouring Administrations working together, and that the devolved Administrations understand how it will work. I re-emphasise that point today from the Dispatch Box. There is therefore not a great deal between the two supporters of the amendment and the Government. We are out to emphasise, as they have, the importance of such consultation taking place. I emphasise that the devolved Administrations are happy with the Bill, so it will be appreciated that we do not see the benefit of placing such a provision in the Bill. I might also add that we are not totally convinced that, if it were in the Bill, this would be the place to put it, but that is a different matter. I hope that, with that statement, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will feel able to withdraw his amendment with some confidence.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He did at least from the Dispatch Box say exactly what I said should be put into the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has seen the letter that came today from the Minister in the other place and which extends a little the list that the noble Lord read out. It says that,
	"an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act ... will be taken forward at Westminster to ensure that Scottish marine plans only bind UK public authorities once they have been approved by UK Ministers".
	However, it goes on to say that,
	"the Scottish Government have offered up a greater say to the UK Government in the inshore region on planning and conservation designation".
	Certain elements are coming in that complicate the area, but I will consider what the Minister has said. I will be interested to hear him say where he thinks an amendment such as this should go, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 38 withdrawn.
	Clause 16: Eligible bodies
	Amendment 39
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	39: Clause 16, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) any local authority;"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment 39, I shall also speak to Amendment 63 in this group.
	What the Minister had to say about working with local authorities in our brief discussion on Amendment 18 and the overlap in area between coastal local authorities and the MMO was very welcome. He talked about working with the Local Government Association, which has a coastal authorities special interest group. My noble friend Lady Miller says that I referred to it in Committee as a special needs group. If I did, I certainly did not mean it in quite that way.
	Clause 16 deals with bodies that are eligible to have a delegation from the MMO. My amendment would add local authorities to the list. The list includes harbour authorities. Some harbour authorities are also local authorities, but I understand that not all coastal local authorities are harbour authorities. This is not a very dramatic or wide amendment. Under Clause 15(1), the delegation requires the approval of the Secretary of State. Clause 17 precludes the delegation of a function that is not compatible with a local authority function, so any suggestion that the amendment would give local authorities far too wide a remit would be incorrect. Clause 18 requires the delegation to have a time limit.
	The local authorities that are coastal authorities undertake land-use planning down to mean low water and prepare their local development frameworks accordingly. This overlaps with the marine planning function, extending to mean high water. Certain local authorities have by-law-making powers that extend offshore, such as zoning areas for water sports, and certain local authorities deliver coastal protection measures that involve the development between the mean high and low water marks and sometimes even below mean low water.
	In Committee, the Minister said in a debate on another amendment that,
	"there will be occasions when, for reasons of resources, expertise or geographical remit, another body is better placed to perform a function on the MMO's behalf".—[Official Report, 21/1/09; col. 1758.]
	It would therefore be entirely appropriate to include local authorities in the list. I appreciate that if they are not included, the Secretary of State can add them because he can add eligible bodies by order, but if it is appropriate for them to be eligible it is appropriate now and we should say so from the start.
	My Amendment 63, which would amend Schedule 5, would require consultation with representatives of coastal local authorities, although not necessarily with every single one, during the preparation of the consultation draft of the marine policy statement and the finalising of that statement, for the reasons that I just gave in speaking to Amendment 39. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I have no amendments in this group and I wondered whether the Government wanted to speak to their amendments before I made my contribution, but I recollect that we had some considerable discussion in Committee on the extent of the marine area or, to put it another way, the area between high water and low water. I remember drawing on my experience of Holbeach Marsh and the Wash and of the large proportion of my wife's county council division that lay under water at high tide. It is clear as you climb the sea bank and at low tide take in the wide expanse of marsh, mudflats and sea that it is a marine area. It is very properly heavily protected and just the sort of coastal area to be part of the Bill's purpose.
	However, I remember being impressed by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who is not in her place at the moment, who introduced a different point of view. I thought of the inter-tidal areas of beaches and the current interests and responsibilities of local authorities in those areas. I had in mind in large terms Brighton beach and other similar places in which the foreshore is an area covered by local authorities in which they have interests and for which they issue by-laws. I therefore welcome the Government's amendments, which ensure that harbour authorities positions' are properly regarded. Further to that, however, I support the idea behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which would ensure that the MMO found ways of reaching joint agreements with local authorities to facilitate the proper use and maintenance of inter-tidal areas where they have a strong interest to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I hope that it will help to clarify these issues, which were the subject of fairly intensive debate in Committee. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that I was not excessively eager to get up to move the government amendments—to which I shall speak—because I regard them as less significant either than the amendment moved by the noble Baroness or Amendment 63, which is also part of the group, as our amendments are largely technical.
	Amendment 39, as the noble Baroness indicated, adds local authorities to the list of bodies that the Marine Management Organisation can enter into agreement with, to allow it to delegate functions to them. It is our intention to include in the list of eligible bodies in Clause 16 all local authorities that would have a legitimate expectation of carrying out functions on behalf of the MMO. We therefore included the sea fisheries committees—they may still exist when the MMO is established—and those local authorities which are also harbour authorities. There is no question that we recognise the significance of local authorities to those responsibilities, while Clause 16 also includes a power allowing the Secretary of State to add bodies to the list in the future, should that be deemed necessary.
	However, it is, surely, inappropriate to add all local authorities to the list of eligible bodies in Clause 16, because it is pretty obvious that not all local authorities would expect to be delegated functions by the Marine Management Organisation. After all, a fair number of our authorities have no coast at all, nor do any of their functions relate to the coastal or marine area. That is why Clause 16(3) states that the Secretary of State,
	"may not exercise the power",
	to add bodies to the list,
	"unless satisfied that at least one of the purposes or functions of the body ... to be added to the list is, or is related to or connected with, a marine function".
	I would have thought that that was clear enough; we only want those local authorities involved which could conceivably have a marine function and, therefore, some relationship with the MMO.
	During the debate in Committee on Clause 20, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, were keen to enable to enable local authorities to work together jointly when carrying out functions delegated to them by the MMO. They supported the flexibility that this type of arrangement would offer the relevant local authorities. I emphasise that we want see that in the operation of Clause 20, but that clause refers specifically to local authorities that are harbour authorities. We have, of course, reflected on the matters that have been raised about joint working, but have decided that we do not wish to restrict local authorities which are also harbour authorities from working together on a particular function, if it is appropriate for them to do so.
	We have, therefore, tabled Amendments 42 to 46 to make that clear. They would alter Clause 20 to allow joint working by local authorities that are harbour authorities to take place. The amendments have been drafted to allow harbour authorities that are operating executive arrangements to work jointly, as well as those authorities that are not. As a result of changes to Clause 20, we have also tabled minor and technical amendments to Clause 19; Amendment 41 is needed to correct the reference to Clause 20 in Clause 19, and is therefore purely technical. I hope, then, that it will be appreciated that we took on board the arguments in Committee about joint working, and that these amendments help to make that clear.
	I turn to the much more substantive Amendment 63, which gives us a further opportunity to restate our intention that local authorities in coastal areas will be fully involved in the marine planning process. The amendment would make coastal local authorities statutory consultees in,
	"the preparation of the consultation draft",
	and when settling the final text. We have previously explained our reasons for not including any statutory consultees for the marine planning process, and the House will surely be relieved to hear that I do not intend to reiterate those arguments; however, I want to give a firm reassurance on the involvement of local authorities in that process.
	First, the statement of public participation will set out how, when and where local communities and stakeholders will be involved in the marine planning process. We intend that that process will be fully participatory, involving as fully as possible all who want to be involved. It is vital for the success of marine planning that local knowledge and expertise is used throughout, a point much emphasised in Committee. The need for compatibility with terrestrial plans—another point that was greatly emphasised—means that there can be absolutely no doubt; relevant local authorities must be consulted in the marine planning process, starting with the marine policy statement.
	In addition, paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 enables the marine plan authority to,
	"seek advice or assistance from any body or person"
	with
	"particular expertise".
	A local authority is clearly such a body and, in our guidance to the Marine Management Organisation, we will set out how we expect it to work closely with representatives from local authorities as part of a focused advisory group, as well as more generally. The group would assist the planning team throughout the process of creating the marine plan.
	In developing the marine planning proposals we have worked closely with the Local Government Association special interest group on coastal issues for nearly three years. To help us to understand how and through what mechanisms we can enable local authorities to be fully involved throughout the marine planning process and the issues around this, including the resource and capacity demands for their involvement, we recently ran a marine planning workshop in partnership with the Local Government Association special interest group. This event was well supported by 35 local authorities and we are considering what further work we may need to take forward. We are endeavouring to engage closely with all 135 local authorities around the coast, so we have also been working with the Coastal Chairs Group, government offices and the regional development agencies coastal network.
	I hope, therefore, that I have given evidence of the fact that far from the Government neglecting the interests and the rightful role of local authorities with a coastal interest, we have been engaged with them over a period of time in preparing this Bill. They know that we intend to include them in that part of the planning process, but we do not think that it is sensible to put the totality of local authorities in the Bill. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will think that we have responded to her amendments and the debate in Committee with thoroughness, and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on the last point, my amendment concerns representatives of local authorities. The marine policy statement is the basis for the marine plan, which is why I felt that it was important to raise it in the context of recognising the points in Schedule 6. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. The first of my amendments is merely about eligibility. It is not about delegation. If the MMO sought to delegate a function to an entirely inappropriate, completely landlocked local authority, I do not think that the local authority would accept the delegation.
	The Minister criticised my first amendment because it would apply to all local authorities. He hinted that perhaps I should have said "coastal" local authorities. But if the Government had wanted coastal local authorities in this list of eligible bodies, they could have said so, they would have said so and they should have said so. I do not think that we got enough exercise the last time we attempted to divide, so on this occasion I will test the opinion of the House.

Division on Amendment 39
	Contents 112; Not-Contents 130.
	Amendment 39 disagreed.

Clause 18: Maximum duration of agreement
	Amendment 40
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	40: Clause 18, page 10, line 34, leave out "marine"
	Amendment 40 agreed.
	Clause 19 : Particular powers
	Amendment 41
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	41: Clause 19, page 11, line 31, leave out " 20(5)(a)" and insert " 20(5)"
	Amendment 41 agreed.
	Clause 20: Agreements with certain harbour authorities
	Amendments 42 to 46
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	42: Clause 20, page 11, line 39, leave out "subsection (5)" and insert "subsections (5) to (5B)"
	43: Clause 20, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) any power of a local authority to arrange for the discharge of the function jointly with another local authority (but only to the extent that each of the authorities is a harbour authority),"
	44: Clause 20, page 12, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"(4) In subsection (3)—
	(a) "committee" includes a joint committee of two or more local authorities which are harbour authorities and which include the local authority mentioned in subsection (1);
	(b) "sub-committee" includes a sub-committee of any such joint committee;
	(c) the reference to a member, officer or employee of the local authority includes a reference to a member, officer or employee of any local authority, or any of the local authorities, with which the local authority may have entered into arrangements for the joint discharge of functions which consist of or include functions which the local authority is authorised under an agreement to perform."
	45: Clause 20, page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	"(5) If the local authority is operating executive arrangements, the function is to be treated as a function of the local authority for the purposes of section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (provision for determining which functions of the authority are to be the responsibility of the executive and which are not).
	(5A) If, in a case where the local authority is operating executive arrangements, the function is to any extent the responsibility of the executive of the local authority, then to that extent—
	(a) subsection (2) does not apply, but
	(b) the provisions mentioned in subsection (5B) have effect.
	(5B) The provisions are—
	(a) sections 14 to 16 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (discharge of functions in the case of different types of executive arrangements);
	(b) any regulations under section 17 or 18 of that Act (discharge of functions by executive of a type prescribed under section 11(5) of that Act, and discharge of functions by area committees);
	(c) so far as relating to arrangements (including the appointment of joint committees) under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) which involve another local authority which is a harbour authority, any regulations under section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (joint exercise of functions)."
	46: Clause 20, page 12, line 16, leave out "(5)(b)(ii)" and insert "(5B)"
	Amendments 42 to 46 agreed.
	Clause 23 : Research
	Amendment 47
	 Moved by Lord Kingsland
	47: Clause 23, page 13, line 9, at end insert "to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person or body"

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not unduly alarmed by this amendment. It is in the nature of a probing amendment and a word from the Minister will be sufficient reassurance, provided, of course, that it is the right word. The Minister will recall the debate that we had on Clause 23 in Committee. My concern is that when the MMO commissions research under subsection (1)(b), it does so according to a procedure that will enable the appropriate decision-maker in the body to choose the right person or research body for the right task.
	My confidence that this will be the case is reinforced both by the prospective insertion into the Bill of a chief scientific adviser and by the Minister's undertaking to have a scientific advisory committee included as part of government guidance to the MMO. I am sure that the MMO will follow such guidance. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that he would expect such procedures to be established by the MMO so that, if it is in the position of having to spend valuable money on research, that money will go to the person or organisation best qualified to use it productively in the public interest. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it might be helpful if I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and then speak to my own amendments in this group. I think I can give the word that the noble Lord is seeking; I think it is "yes" and I am happy to say that. The noble Lord is also right to say that the amendments we have tabled, particularly those on the appointment of a chief scientific adviser and my commitment that the MMO will establish a scientific advisory committee, in themselves go a long way towards meeting the point he is making.
	We expect the MMO to forge good and active relations with many of the centres of scientific excellence. Those include—there is always a danger in listing only some of them but I will take the risk today because I want to make this point to the noble Lord—the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership, the National Oceanography Centre, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, or CEFAS, the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and Newcastle University School of Marine Science and Technology, to name a few. All of those organisations and others are staffed by experts in the field of marine research. I would expect the MMO to have a robust approach to commissioning research from organisations that are appropriately qualified, with people who are qualified and best able to make a contribution. I hope the noble Lord is happy with those assurances.
	I turn now to my Amendment 48 to Clause 23. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had a very interesting discussion about the MMO's power to undertake research. Some noble Lords were concerned that, as currently drafted, subsection (2) would require the MMO to disclose all results of research to any person on request, including those results that may be of a sensitive nature and the disclosure of which could have unwanted implications. I have reflected on those concerns and tabled Amendment 48 to address them. Let me make it clear that, as a non-departmental public body, the MMO should make available to the public as much information as possible and that it is required to have a publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. We intend the MMO to act in an open and transparent manner. It is entirely appropriate that the MMO should make available the results of any research that it undertakes. My department has a publication scheme for research projects, the results of which are publicly available on the departmental website. The way in which the MMO operates should be no different from that at all.
	However, while we want the MMO to make as much information as possible publicly available, there might be occasions when it is not appropriate to disclose the results of research. In Committee noble Lords instanced some of those occasions. For example, they might arise because information includes personal data or, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested earlier, because the information is commercially sensitive or affects British interests. In such cases the MMO might reasonably wish to keep the information confidential. It would be possible to keep this type of information confidential under an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or an exception from the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I accept that that is not explicit in the clause as drafted. As a result, I have decided that it would be appropriate to bring Amendment 48 to your Lordships so that it tightens the clause to make it clear that any requirement for the MMO to make available its results or research would be subject to any exemptions or exceptions under two pieces of access to information legislation, namely the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The MMO would also not have to disclose information that was prohibited from disclosure under any other Act in the future.
	I should say clearly again that, having tabled this amendment in light of the concerns expressed in Committee, our overall stance is that the MMO will wish to make as much information as possible publicly available, and we will make sure that it happens. This is a sensible amendment in light of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee. I hope it finds favour with your Lordships.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing his amendment and I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He has persuaded the Government to ensure the importance of science in the Bill and, indeed, the importance of building up our knowledge of the marine environment, which is only just starting to be appreciated. Although progress is being made, the MMO will be critical in encouraging further research and investigation.
	Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of being invited by the Minister to look around the research vessel "Cefas Endeavour", and the work impressed me greatly. The mapping, collating and analysis being carried out will be of great benefit to all users of the marine environment, fishermen as well as conservationists. However, it is not just Cefas that is involved in this work. As my noble friend said, there are research laboratories in universities as well as private firms seeking to produce more effective equipment and develop new techniques. All sources of information must be exploited if we are to manage our seas effectively. I thank the Minister for tabling his amendment and thus meeting our concerns.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving what I regard as a copy-book answer, one that I wish I had the eloquence to have drafted myself. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 47 withdrawn.
	Amendment 48
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	48: Clause 23, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
	"(3) Subsection (2) does not require the MMO to make available—
	(a) any information that it could refuse to disclose in response to a request under—
	(i) the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36), or
	(ii) the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3391) or any regulations replacing those Regulations;
	(b) any information whose disclosure is prohibited by any enactment."
	Amendment 48 agreed.
	Amendment 49
	 Moved by Earl Cathcart
	49: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
	"Advisory role of the MMO in development consents
	(1) The Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 60 (local impact reports) insert—
	"60A Advice from the Marine Management Organisation
	(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—
	(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
	(b) the application relates to land which is in the UK marine area or is likely to impact upon the UK marine area.
	(2) The Commission must give notice in writing to the Marine Management Organisation, inviting it to submit advice and recommendations in respect of the application.
	(3) The "Marine Management Organisation" is the body established under section 1 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
	(4) The "UK marine area" is the area defined within section 40 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009."
	(3) After paragraph (2)(d) in section 104 (decisions of Panel and Council) insert—
	"(e) any advice and recommendations given to the Panel or Council by the Marine Management Organisation in accordance with section 60A as inserted by section (Advisory role of the MMO in development consents) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009."
	(4) After paragraph (2)(d) in section 105 (decisions of the Secretary of State) insert—
	"(d) any advice and recommendations given to the Commission by the Marine Management Organisation in accordance with section 60A as inserted by section (Advisory role of the MMO in development consents) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009."
	(5) After subsection (1) in section 116 (reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent) insert—
	"(1A) Where the Commission has received advice and recommendations from the Marine Management Organisation, the reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent must include a statement addressing—
	(a) the advice and recommendations that were adopted;
	(b) justification for not adopting any advice and recommendations.""

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, this group of amendments looks rather more like those we discussed in Committee, with several versions of much the same point being tabled by various Peers around the House. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that with these amendments, we are all trying to achieve the same thing: the statutory role of the MMO as an adviser to the IPC for decisions that will impact on the marine area it has responsibility for. I am sure that the drafting of these alternatives could be improved, but it is always tricky to amend previous legislation. However, I hope that the substance is clear.
	It may be surprising to the Minister that we have returned in such force to this group. After all, we are close to the Government's own position on the point. In Committee, we tabled much stronger amendments which sought to insist that the MMO should take complete control of these decisions. I hope the Minister will appreciate our search for an acceptable compromise. We still oppose the carve-out of such important decisions from the MMO because that damages not only its position as the principal management body for the marine environment, but also achievement of a consistent policy of sustainable development. In this I believe that I am supported by noble Lords to my right and many outside organisations concerned with the effective implementation of the Government's marine policy. However, it has been made clear to us that the Government do not intend to move on putting the MMO in overall charge of all planning decisions at sea. Of course, with the numbers in this House we probably could have won the day, but only for a short time, and I have been persuaded that seeking to insist on such a policy, only to see it rejected in another place, would be counterproductive for the smooth passage of a Bill that we are all keen to see made into law.
	A better option is to seek a compromise amendment which I hope will be more acceptable to all sides of the House. This amendment therefore represents the bare minimum of what we would find acceptable and is not, I believe, very different from the Government's own intentions. We seek to put in the Bill that the MMO must be a statutory adviser or consultee and that the IPC must not only seek the advice of the MMO, but where its advice and recommendations are not taken, justification for not adopting them must be published. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, but if not, that he will be able to come back on Report with his own no doubt better drafted version. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are the "various Peers" who have tabled the other amendments in the group, although from the minor explosion on the Front Bench, perhaps I should put on the record that we are only to the right of the noble Earl in the geographical sense.
	The Government have created two big beasts in the IPC and the MMO and it is essential—not a word I use lightly—to ensure that the relationship between them is proper, appropriate and as equal as it can be, given that their responsibilities are not so very different. Our amendments amount to something very similar to that moved by the noble Earl so I do not need to go through the detail, but I will say that we believe that there is a qualitative difference between being a statutory adviser and a statutory consultee.
	During the passage of what is now the Planning Act, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, talked about the MMO. I have to say that at the time, while I could understand at a certain level what he was saying, I did not appreciate the deep and instinctive way he put his point forward; I did not understand the depth of it, but I do now. He was absolutely right. I probably said at the time that he was right, but the comments were perhaps less passionate than his. We are very passionate about this because we want to see these systems working well, so these amendments are intended to be genuinely constructive in that they do not seek to obstruct what the Government are doing, and constructive not just in regard to this Bill but also with that which has already been passed; that is, the Planning Act.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 50 and 51. We all want the Marine Management Organisation to be the single planning body for the marine environment and, to be honest, had we ganged together, we could have driven that through the House. That would have been a sensible outcome. But the Government appear to be very against it, so this group of amendments attempts to ensure that the MMO and the IPC really do stand shoulder to shoulder rather than as a superior and an inferior body.
	The reason I support Amendments 50 and 51 is that they lay out clearly that the MMO should be a statutory adviser to the IPC in development consents for those projects in energy generation and the larger harbour schemes that the IPC is responsible for, not just for land that has an impact on the marine environment, which I think is the purport of Amendment 49. Advice needs to be given on individual projects and not just on statements or plans. I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Government are currently consulting on the list of statutory consultees for the national policy statements, and I welcome that within the consultation it states that the MMO, once established, will be included as a statutory consultee along with the Secretary of State on those statements.
	I also welcome the Government's proposals that, currently subject to consultation, the MMO will be on the list of statutory consultees that the applicant must consult before submitting an application to the IPC. However, there is a difference between being a statutory consultee for the MPS or for an applicant for an individual application and being a consultee to the IPC on the range of issues that it will be dealing with that impact on the marine environment. Amendments 50 and 51 take that forward. I hope that the Government will recognise that this simply brings the IPC and the MMO shoulder to shoulder in an amicable way, rather than as a superior and a subordinate organisation. A statutory consultee makes the MMO just one of a bunch; being a statutory adviser, which implies that advice has to be sought and reasons stated when it is not taken, is appropriate for a body that needs to have similar powers and similar clout to the IPC.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I recognise that the intent of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and, indeed, those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to get the right relationship between the IPC and MMO and on that basis, they are very much appreciated. I know that those of us who debated this matter on the Planning Bill and in Committee on this Bill have different views about the role of the IPC in relation to consents above 100 megawatts. We debated the principle when the Planning Bill went through and also discussed the potential role of the MMO, but of course, that was before legislation had been brought before Parliament, so, in a sense, it was a discussion in anticipation. On the role of the IPC, we think it right that, for applications that come within the definition of "nationally significant", the decision should be made by the IPC. However, I also want to make it clear that we consider that the MMO will have a very important role to play throughout the consideration of nationally significant infrastructure projects, both in, or which are capable of affecting, the marine area—one should mention ports as well as wind farm developments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we want to make the arrangements proper and appropriate; we share the view of all noble Lords on that.
	We see the MMO as being involved at three key stages of the development of nationally significant infrastructure projects that are within the marine area. First, marine developers must consult the MMO before they make any application to the IPC. That should ensure that the MMO is fully engaged at the start of the application process. Secondly, the MMO will be a statutory party as part of the IPC's examination of marine projects and our intention had been to enshrine these roles in secondary legislation. Thirdly—and very importantly—where the IPC grants consent in the marine area for a development to take place, it will grant a deemed marine licence for the marine aspects of that development after consultation with the MMO. Such a licence will be managed and enforced by the MMO, so that when new evidence comes to light on a particular development, the MMO will, if necessary, be able to modify any conditions of the licence, add new conditions or even revoke it. I think that that gives the MMO very important status and standing.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am trying to envisage the circumstances in which the MMO would legitimately do what the Minister has just described. If we are talking about the bigger ports and the major infrastructure developments offshore for energy generation, once planning consent has been granted and construction work has started, the likelihood that the MMO is going to leap to its feet and ask for things to be demolished and taken away is nil. We must take a realistic view about what the power of variation of conditions will mean in reality.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is underestimating the power of the MMO in that respect and also underestimating the fact that the MMO will have been consulted before the IPC comes to make the original decision.
	Turning to the detail of the amendments, the way the Planning Act works is to place a duty on applicants to consult the MMO at the pre-application stage, and once an application has been accepted by the IPC, to notify the MMO and invite it to make representations. Amendment 49 would, in effect, duplicate what the Planning Act regime will already require, in that the applicant will have already notified the MMO and invited it to make representations regarding the application. It is our clear intention that the national policy statement and the marine policy statement will be consistent. Of course, there may be many cases where the MMO will have nothing to add to an individual application over and above the opinions of the IPC and we would be concerned about imposing an absolute obligation, as proposed in Amendment 51, on the MMO to give advice in such circumstances. At the moment, the MMO would advise only as required, which would already be the case under the system set in the Planning Act and in the secondary legislation that we intended. Moreover I believe that this intention as regards these advice-giving functions is already met through Clause 24 of the Bill, which states that the MMO may provide whatever advice it feels appropriate to other public bodies, on its own initiative or upon request.
	As for the intention in the amendments to require the IPC to include specific reference to MMO advice and recommendations that were adopted when refusing or granting a licence, and to give justification for not adopting any of this advice or recommendations, the MMO will be a statutory party as part of the IPC's examination of marine projects. Like advice from any body with statutory duties, any advice from the MMO provided to the IPC will be an important part of the IPC's consideration. Section 116 of the Planning Act already imposes a duty on the IPC to give reasons for the decisions it makes. In practice, the IPC would need to justify itself when not following the MMO's advice. The IPC has to justify its decision and would clearly be at risk of having that decision overturned in the courts.
	I have some reservations about the exact details of the amendments, but I understand the importance of the substance of what is contained in the argument in support of those amendments. I understand the need to give as much certainty as possible about the relationship between the MMO and the IPC. I understand that noble Lords want to ensure that the expertise and experience that the MMO will gain is utilised. It is worth making the point that, if we take account of offshore developments, the MMO will be building up experience, because it will be the statutory body asked to give consents for projects up to 100 megawatts, so it will have a lot of expertise to give.
	Because of that, and because I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been put, I should like to take this matter away and see whether, after discussion between now and Third Reading, the Government can come up with suitable amendments that reflect in primary legislation the MMO's role of being a statutory consultee at the pre-application stage and a statutory party to IPC examinations, as a way of providing reassurance that the MMO will have a clear, important and transparent role in the process.
	I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords will accept that the Government are prepared to engage in these important matters and that we can come back to this at Third Reading with an amendment that meets the substance of the arguments that noble Lords have put.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have an academic question. The MMO, rightly, must be consulted first, as the Minister has reinforced again today. It is a statutory party regarding decisions that are taken. At the end of the day, though, the organisation is consulted only as it stands in the Bill. I seek clarification on this point. If the IPC decides that it does not agree with the MMO's findings, the IPC overrules it. The Minister is nodding.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is right, my Lords. We have heard today that, although a number of noble Lords do not agree with the relationship between the IPC and the MMO, that relationship is central to offshore marine developments of above 100 megawatts. There are safeguards, however. It was intended that we use secondary legislation to make the issue of consultation clear, but I have agreed to see what government amendment or amendments we could bring forward to enshrine those safeguards in primary legislation.
	I say to the noble Baroness that the work of the IPC will take place in the context of the national policy statements, while that of the MMO will take place in the context of the marine policy statements. Given that it is the Government's responsibility to bring forward those statements, we are under an obligation to ensure that there is consistency between the two, and we will seek to do that.
	My third point is that the MMO will have undoubted expertise and experience in this area. It will be the organisation that is asked to give consent for most of these developments—only a limited number will meet the threshold for matters to fall to the IPC—in which case the MMO will be a serious player with a significant input into the process.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, and for agreeing to take this away and try to come back with some words that will strengthen the position. Some of us were very concerned about this. Although he said that these matters could end up in the courts, that is not where any of us want to be. It would be so much better to do it in primary legislation than to leave it to secondary legislation.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he just used the term "serious player" about the MMO. What he has said is very welcome. Could we retain that phrase? I wrote down "legislative parity". It is obviously not possible for the two bodies to be absolutely equal, but we are saying that we want them to be as equal as possible.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, would the Minister just take account of—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry, my Lords, but we are on Report and I truly have sat down.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the Government's position so clearly. I do not believe that any of us who have contributed to this debate are very far apart. We all want to see the MMO in the Bill as a statutory adviser/consultee. Where the IPC does not take the MMO's advice and recommendations, it should publish the reasons why not.
	I thank all those who have contributed, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for flattering me with her disapproval of my amendment and choosing the other amendment in this group. We are all nearly there, though. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 49 withdrawn.
	Clause 24: Advice, assistance and training facilities
	Amendments 50 and 51 not moved.
	Clause 25: Provision of information etc
	Amendment 52
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	52: Clause 25, page 13, line 33, leave out "provision of such publications or" and insert "publication of such documents or the provision of such"
	Amendment 52 agreed.
	Clause 28: Power to bring proceedings
	Amendment 53
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	53: Clause 28, page 14, line 41, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
	"(4) The MMO may designate under this subsection any of its employees who would not (apart from subsection (6)) be entitled to carry on, in relation to magistrates' court proceedings, an activity which constitutes—
	(a) the conduct of litigation, or
	(b) the exercise of a right of audience falling within subsection (5).
	(5) The rights of audience are—
	(a) a right of audience in trials of summary offences;
	(b) a right of audience in relation to any application for, or relating to, bail in criminal proceedings relating to a summary offence or an offence triable either way, unless (as matters stand at the time when the application is made) the offence is to be tried on indictment;
	(c) a right of audience in relation to interlocutory applications and sentencing in proceedings relating to a summary offence or an offence triable either way;
	(d) a right of audience in proceedings for the recovery of any sum of money.
	(6) Subject to any exceptions specified in the designation, a person designated under subsection (4) is entitled to carry on, in relation to magistrates' court proceedings, any activity specified in the designation which constitutes—
	(a) the conduct of litigation, or
	(b) the exercise of a right of audience falling within subsection (5).
	(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), a trial—
	(a) begins with the opening of the prosecution case after the entry of a plea of not guilty, and
	(b) ends with the conviction or acquittal of the accused.
	(8) In this section—
	"bail in criminal proceedings"—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Bail Act 1976 (c. 63) (see subsection (1) of that section);
	(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, means bail within the meaning of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13));
	"conduct of litigation" has the meaning given by paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29);
	"magistrates' court proceedings" means proceedings before a magistrates' court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland;
	"right of audience" has the meaning given by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 28, as drafted, allow the MMO to designate people to carry out certain legal proceedings on the MMO's behalf. The intention behind these subsections was to allow staff who were not legally qualified to conduct litigation in the magistrates' courts and to exercise certain rights of audience in those courts. For more straightforward cases we believe that it should be possible for certain employees authorised by the MMO to be involved in some trials and to recover civil penalties. That will allow cases to come before the courts more speedily, especially in the case of guilty pleas.
	The amendment simply clarifies the intent of that policy. Clause 28(4) gives the MMO the power to designate any person to conduct proceedings in the magistrates' court, whereas we need to provide that power only in relation to those who are not legally qualified. Amendment 53 therefore rewords the clause so that the MMO can authorise specifically those people who are not legally qualified.
	The amendment also clarifies the existing provisions as well as our policy on cases that staff who are not legally qualified can carry out. Clause 28(5) sets out the type of rights of audience that the MMO may designate staff who are not legally qualified to carry out, while subsection (7) provides detail about when a trial is taken to begin and end for the purposes of a right of audience in trials of summary offences. Clause 28(8) includes a definition of what we mean by "bail proceedings" through reference to other relevant enactments.
	I hope that the House will agree that the changes we have made to the drafting improve the clarity of the clause. The amendments do not involve a change of policy; they merely clarify what was the intent all along. I hope that they command the assent of the House.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the amendment and his explanation of its implications. Will he give us a little more information about the qualifications that these employees will have in order for them to be able to handle these activities effectively? It surely would not be to the benefit of either the MMO or court procedure in general if inadequately trained people were expected to handle litigation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly expect the individuals to have a distinct level of expertise, and they will need to have had the training to equip them with that. The noble Lord will appreciate that we are seeking to avoid a situation where only legally qualified staff can carry on this work. If the point of his inquiry is that there is proper concern that those exercising these functions will have had adequate training and will know their competence in those terms, that is certainly the intent.
	Amendment 53 agreed.
	Amendment 54
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	54: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
	"Continuation of certain existing prosecutions
	(1) Any prosecution commenced by the Secretary of State before the appropriate commencement date—
	(a) for an offence in relation to any of the functions transferred to the MMO by or under Chapter 2 of this Part, or
	(b) for an offence under the fisheries legislation (see subsections (2) and (3)),
	may be continued on or after that day by the MMO.
	(2) In this section "the fisheries legislation" means—
	(a) any enactments relating to sea fishing, including any enactment relating to fishing for shellfish, salmon or migratory trout (but see subsection (3));
	(b) any enforceable EU restrictions and enforceable EU obligations relating to sea fishing.
	(3) "The fisheries legislation" does not include—
	(a) the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51);
	(b) the Salmon Act 1986 (c. 62);
	(c) byelaws made by the Environment Agency under Schedule 25 to the Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57);
	(d) the Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1746);
	(e) byelaws made by an inshore fisheries and conservation authority under section 151.
	(4) In this section—
	"the appropriate commencement date" means—
	(a) in relation to an offence falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the date on which the function to which the offence relates is transferred to the MMO;
	(b) in relation to an offence falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, the date on which section 1 comes into force;
	"enforceable EU obligation" means an obligation to which section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) applies;
	"enforceable EU restriction" means a restriction to which section 2(1) of that Act applies."
	Amendment 54 agreed.
	Clause 36: Guidance by the Secretary of State
	Amendments 55 to 58
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	55: Clause 36, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may give the MMO guidance with respect to the exercise of any of the MMO's functions."
	56: Clause 36, page 18, line 25, after "it" insert "under this Act"
	57: Clause 36, page 18, line 27, leave out "guidance to the MMO" and insert "such guidance"
	58: Clause 36, page 18, line 31, leave out subsection (3)
	Amendments 55 to 58 agreed.
	Clause 39 : Exclusive economic zone
	Amendment 58A
	 Moved by The Duke of Montrose
	58A: Clause 39, page 20, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may by order withdraw a designation of all or part of an area in which a devolved administration has functions."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it strikes me that under the Bill, we—or perhaps more properly the Government and their administrators, who put these matters before us—are sitting behind our desks and drawing lines on the map for areas for which we have only the sketchiest detail, in much the same way as the old colonial Administrations used to do for parts of Africa and North America. That was underlined by my noble friend Lord Kingsland who, with much more authority than I can bring, told us that we know only about 3 per cent of the area for which we are legislating. I am sure that the colonial administrators also thought that they were dealing with areas in which nobody resided and which would not cause any problems.
	Of course, at this stage we are not causing disruption to any resident populations of humans or administrative boundaries of communities. However, as our knowledge of detail expands and as the structures we place on the marine conservation zones become more rigorously enforced, we may find that these boundaries are causing unnecessary complications. That might then be overcome by redrawing the boundary in a way that would appear to be logical, although currently we have no access to the logic that might be available to future generations.
	I find it of some interest that the mechanism used in subsection (4) in designating the different devolved areas is an Order in Council. Some kind advice that the Minister offered me is that Section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978, if applied, would imply a power for amending or modifying an Order in Council.
	What strikes me is that what we are looking at here predates the coming of devolution while not predating our acceptance of some European legislation. The issue might not be as clear as it once was. Let us suppose it became necessary to move the boundary between the English and Scottish offshore areas, or, heaven forbid, a new Administration in Scotland decided that they were not going to participate in the marine policy statement, but would insist that an Order in Council was not just any order and could not be overturned. Perhaps they would be able to argue that under some abstruse European statute, Orders in Council came under the aegis of their Administration. A clause such as the one I have proposed might serve to clarify any doubt there would be on the point. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I am not sure I can entirely follow the hypothetical case that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has set out, nor indeed where the Scottish Parliament might get some powers from a European source to insist on an Order in Council.
	Undoubtedly, the designation of boundaries has a capacity for controversy. When the Scottish Parliament was established just 10 years ago, I well recall that one of the first orders we had to pass, which had previously been passed in this Parliament, was to determine the boundary between Scotland and England for devolution of fisheries matters. They took a line, which went at an angle from where the Scotland/England boundary hits the coast just north of Berwick-upon-Tweed. That was contested by many Members of the Scottish Parliament, including those of my own party. Indeed, the first rebellion of my Back-Benchers was on that occasion, and we narrowly won the vote. Therefore, the issue is not without controversy.
	However, there are certain advantages and certainty with a boundary that is set rather than one that continually flows back and forth; although I noted in an edition of the Economist last month that because of melting glaciers in the Alps the boundary between Italy and Switzerland is on the move. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that there is a similar sort of geological change here, but I cannot honestly be persuaded by the case made by the noble Duke, although undoubtedly these are sensitive issues.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I never thought that the issue of boundaries could be anything other than sensitive in almost any context. Therefore, I appreciate the interest in this clause and the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. The Government consider that the time has come for the United Kingdom to declare an exclusive economic zone. This is an internationally recognised concept that is characteristically set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Up to now we have declared different zones for different purposes—fisheries, marine pollution, renewable energy and carbon storage. We recognise that the accumulation of these different zones produces the potential for confusion domestically, and is somewhat contrary to best international practice. Therefore, we believe that declaring an exclusive economic zone is the right course.
	We do not think that the issue with regard to the amendment arises. The noble Duke referred to the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to these orders made under Clause 39(4). I am sorry if it causes some difficulty, but the Interpretation Act is there to facilitate all concerned with these issues, to make it easier for the law to be understood and therefore enacted. Implied in the power in Clause 39(4) is a power to revoke, amend or re-enact any order made under that clause. Therefore, we already have, under the Interpretation Act, the very power that the noble Duke identified.
	I have no way of allaying the broad anxiety, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated, that there can be differences of interpretation about the contestability of boundaries. I am all too well aware that that is a sensitive issue with implications as regards aspects of the relationship between England and Scotland, to say nothing of other devolved practice. I cannot answer that within the framework of this very limited amendment to the clause. What I am obliged to answer is why this amendment is not necessary and I have sought to make that case. I hope the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is satisfied on that point.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minster for his reply. It is of course very useful that, even if the amendment is any good, he has at least stated the issue from the Dispatch Box for anybody who wishes to look at it again. We hope that if alterations to boundaries do become necessary—and I still think that they might—they will be achieved amicably and that there will not be any need to worry about rescinding legislation. In the light of these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 58A withdrawn.
	Clause 41 : Welsh zone
	Amendment 59
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	59: Clause 41, page 21, line 20, leave out "modify or amend" and insert "make such modifications or amendments of"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I say with some relief that this is definitively a minor and technical amendment to correct a grammatical error in the original drafting. It does not alter in any way the effect of Clause 41, which amends the Government of Wales Act 2006 to introduce a definition of the Welsh zone; it simply improves the grammar of the clause as originally drafted. I beg to move.
	Amendment 59 agreed.
	Clause 42 : Marine policy statement
	Amendment 60
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	60: Clause 42, page 22, line 2, after "MPS" insert "or a policy, statement or information in a national policy statement designated under the Planning Act 2008 (c. 29)"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are all for elegance, particularly when it is achieved in under one minute.
	In Committee I tabled amendments on the relationship between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements under the Planning Act. It was explained to me that the subsection that I had attempted to amend had the purpose of promoting internal consistency within the marine policy statement. I did understand that. I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I understood not only that but that my own amendments would have taken the matter of consistency into a different area. So I say at the start that I am concerned not about internal consistency within the marine policy statement—I am concerned about it, but not for the purposes of this amendment—but about how we can be assured that the marine policy statement and the potentially large number of national policy statements are consistent, not as a matter of intention or aspiration but through the process provided by the legislation.
	That is not quite as easy or obvious as it might appear, because more than one Administration are involved in the marine policy statement. At the last stage, the Minister said:
	"If, as we intend, all four Administrations agree".—[Official Report, 28/01/2009; col. 331.]
	I read that phrase to my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who, with his background in one of the Administrations, laughed for quite a long time.
	These amendments seek a greater understanding of the process provided for by the legislation. Amendments 60 and 61 would deal with the marine policy statement covered in Clause 42. Grouped with them, as they are on similar points, are Amendments 76 and 77 to Clause 49, which is about marine plans, and Amendments 89 and 90 to Clause 56, which is about authorisation and the enforcement of decisions. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter. We come back to this relationship between the MMO and the IPC and also, in this group of amendments, the relationship between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements. She is right to say that there will be a number of those statements. I very much understand the point she raises about the need for clarity. She also mentioned the relationship between this Administration and the devolved Administrations. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, might be in the Chamber for the order that is about to be debated as it covers matters in which he has a great interest. I am not quite sure what lay behind his laughter, which the noble Baroness described. Our discussions with the devolved Administrations over the past few months about the Bill and the areas where we need absolute clarity and consistency between the Administrations have gone very well indeed.
	These are interesting amendments. One of their themes is the extent of the influence of the plans and the marine policy statement on the IPC's decisions; hence the amendment which would require the IPC to take its decisions in accordance with marine policy documents. Another thread in the amendments is that which relates to which documents and policies should take precedence in the event of a conflict between them.
	We are always in danger of reopening the regime established by the Planning Act 2008, which the Government are reluctant to do. We believe that it has established a new regime for allowing us to address the national need for infrastructure that is vital to the future of this country. The new regime has been put in place precisely because of the recognition of the particular and special importance of nationally significant infrastructure projects and the considerable challenges that are related to them. In particular, I believe that there is a lot of support for the notion that there should be a special planning and consenting regime to consider them. Nationally significant infrastructure projects which are in the marine area, whether they are related to ports or energy generation, are a vital part of this new process. The Government have consistently argued that those projects should not be removed from the new planning regime simply because they are in the marine area.
	We think that it is entirely appropriate that the IPC will make its decisions in accordance with the national policy statements but also have regard to the marine policy statement and relevant plans, because we think that that gets the relationship right. Clearly, as far as the IPC is concerned, the relevant national policy statement will be the prime statement. However, we are also clear that the IPC must have regard to the marine policy statement. I do not want to take us back to the debate on group 10, but we also expect the MMO to have a strong role by having to be consulted on pre-applications and then to have an involvement in the IPC's examination process itself.
	I also want to reiterate a point which I have made consistently. The national policy statements and the marine policy statement plans will be entirely consistent—they have to be. The same departments will collectively be involved in establishing both the NPS and the marine policy statement. It would be intolerable if there were inconsistency and conflicts between the two statements. It would not give the kind of clarity that all noble Lords, including me and the Government, wish to see.
	I know that the noble Baroness's Amendments 89 and 90 seek to ensure that policies in the marine policy statement or plans will always take precedence over those in the national policy statements. Of course, Clause 56 imposes a clear duty on public authorities, with the single exception of the IPC, to take any authorisation or enforcement decision relating to the marine area in accordance with the marine policy statement and plans. In contrast, the only public authority under a direct duty to take its decisions in accordance with the national policy statements is the IPC, in view of the national significance of projects on which it will take decisions. So those duties and the relative precedence of the marine policy statement and national policy statements in relation to authorisation and enforcement decisions seem to be entirely appropriate.
	The question of precedence is less acute in relation to the secondary duty on public authorities to have regard to the marine policy statement and plans when taking their other marine decisions. Even so, that duty to have regard to the marine policy documents is clear and applies to any decision which is capable of affecting the UK marine area.
	I am not unrealistic. I recognise that there will sometimes be circumstances in which a planning authority is to have regard to both a national policy statement and the marine policy statement. Despite the best endeavours of government, there could be a conflict between the two which had not previously been foreseen, and I do not think that as a matter of principle one could provide that the marine documents should in all cases outweigh the national policy statements. Policies on matters of national significance will by their very nature often be different from those relating to local matters. Sometimes a decision-maker, such as a coastal local planning authority in the present context, may need to consider both when deciding what weight as a material or relevant consideration should be given to each. We have therefore not imposed duties to take these decisions in accordance with either the marine policy statement or the national policy statements, precisely because in such circumstances we believe that public authorities should use their discretion and judgment, looking at the context and the likely impacts of possible decisions.
	That is not an unusual approach and, after many years' experience, planning authorities are experts in weighing up and integrating government policy. We would also expect them to seek advice from the relevant department on how to resolve any conflict, which will help us to identify any potential need for clarification or amendment of our policies. It should not be a question of technical precedence but of taking the best decision for the marine area and the national interest in all the circumstances.
	If the noble Baroness were to press her amendments and they were accepted by your Lordships they might reduce the clarity in the Bill about how any conflicts within the MPS or plan should be resolved. Clauses 42(3) and 49(9) presently provide that in the event of a conflict between the policy and any other information included in an MPS or plan, the conflict is to be resolved in favour of the policy. This provision is necessary to ensure clarity for decision-makers and we think that that would be lost if the focus of these clauses were turned on the national policy statements instead.
	I apologise for speaking at such length. It is so good to see the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, now in his place. It is not too late for him to intervene and explain why he thinks that collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will not work on the marine Bill. His timing is impeccable.
	I fully understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has moved these amendments—she seeks clarity. I want to reassure her that we thought a lot about this. We do not want the circumstance that she fears to arise whereby there is a lack of clarity and a conflict and the relevant public bodies do not know what to do. It is clear, as it has to be, that the IPC must turn first to the national policy statements.
	I turn to my own amendment in this group. It is a minor and technical amendment to correct a typographical error in Clause 56(4). As noble Lords will have noted, the closing words should read "in relation to which" rather than "relating to which", as currently in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will support the Government on that amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was a typographical mistake, was it? I thought that it was much more significant.
	We on these Benches often see our role as one of asking the "what ifs". I found what the Minister said very helpful. It certainly deserves to be read properly. It went a great deal further than the response that I had on similar amendments in Committee. He accepts the possibility of conflict, as do we, not least because the two sets of statements may have been developed at different times, with slightly different considerations. I need to think about his comment on not allowing a technical response and the Government being unable to tweak policy. I think that that was more or less what he said.
	I am left with one query. In saying that the MPS and the NPSs must be consistent, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State would not agree something that was inconsistent if there were a conflict between the Secretary of State and one or more of the devolved Administrations? That seems to be what he is saying or the natural conclusion to his comments. His comments were helpful. I certainly do not intend to press the matter tonight. My objective is to understand the Government's thinking and how it would all work rather better than was set out at the previous stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendment 61 not moved.
	Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.30 pm.

Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments and Practitioner Psychologists) Order 2009

Copy of the Order 
	9th Report from JCSI
	11th Report from MC

Motion to Approve

Moved By Baroness Thornton
	That the draft order laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
	Relevant Documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 11th Report from the Merits Committee.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the reforms set out in this draft order aim to enhance public confidence in the ability of the healthcare regulatory bodies to protect the public and deal with poor professional standards. The order continues the process of implementing the Government's programme to improve patient safety through the reform and modernisation of the regulation of the healthcare professions, as set out in the White Paper, Trust, Assurance and Safety.
	I am aware that there has been a lot of interest in the build-up to this debate both in support of and against the provisions. There appears to be a good deal of confusion about the content of the order, what it provides for and what it does not. I should therefore like to spend a little time going through the provisions of the order and dealing with some of the issues that have been raised.
	This order introduces statutory regulation of practitioner psychologists across the UK. It is in this area that I think most of the confusion has arisen, so let me make clear now that the order makes no provision at all for the regulation of psychotherapists or counsellors. Psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors are part of a number of professional groups offering talking therapies. At the moment, the only regulated group is psychiatrists, who are regulated as doctors by the GMC. As doctors they can also prescribe drugs to patients. The next highest qualified providers of talking therapies are practitioner psychologists, who are now being regulated for the first time. They must all have postgraduate qualifications.
	Consideration is also being given to the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors who have descending levels of professional qualification. The Health Professions Council has been working with bodies representing these groups to develop proposals but we are not there yet. Those discussions are continuing but no formal decisions have been made although we understand that the working group is hoping to report to the council of the HPC later this year. Any proposals to regulate psychotherapists and counsellors will be subject to further consultation before legislation is brought before the House. Given the weight of interventions on this matter by psychotherapists, we anticipate robust discussion and consultation.
	Statutory regulation exists to protect the public from poorly performing practitioners. It does this essentially in three ways: first, by setting standards of practice, training and conduct; secondly, by registering those who have trained as competent and fit to practise; and thirdly, by operating a system to investigate and impose sanctions on registrants who are found unfit to practise. However, we do not wish to regulate for the sake of regulation.
	As regards practitioner psychologists, after much discussion and consultation we have identified seven areas of practice within the overarching discipline of psychology where the majority of those practising work with individuals or groups on interventions to improve their health or well-being, and as such carry the greatest potential for causing harm to their patients. These groups are clinical psychologists, health psychologists, counselling psychologists, forensic psychologists, educational psychologists, occupational psychologists and sport and exercise psychologists. We do not want to regulate all psychologists as this would capture significant numbers of psychologists who do not work with clients or patients and who form no risk to the health and well-being of individuals; for example, those psychologists working in the area of pure academic research, teachers and other psychology graduates who we do not wish statutorily to regulate. Nor do we want to protect the title "psychologist" for the exclusive use of those we are regulating as that would prevent these other groups who we do not wish to regulate but who have a legitimate claim to that title, from using it.
	I am aware that there are a number of chartered psychologists with practising certificates who the British Psychological Society consider should have their names automatically transferred to the new HPC register, along with those who are members of the seven divisions of the BPC, whose members will transfer automatically. However, it is not clear whether these chartered psychologists are entitled to membership of those seven divisions. If they are not, they are not at present allowed by the BPS to use the titles associated with membership of those divisions—for example, clinical psychologist—and as the BPS has not granted them the right to use those titles we are not prepared to provide for their automatic transfer to the new register, which would give them that right. However, we are asking the BPS to work with us to resolve these situations. I should emphasise that a cornerstone of statutory regulation is restricting the use of titles associated with a profession to those who should properly be entitled to use them. This means that the public can be reassured that a person who calls himself, for example, a clinical psychologist, is fully qualified and able to treat them as such.
	As a consequence of all this those BPS members with practising certificates who are not allowed by the BPS to use the basic protected titles will need, if they wish to use any of those protected titles, to apply to the HPC for registration once the statutory register opens. The HPC has indicated that it will recognise all existing qualifications that would have led to chartered psychologist status. If a BPS member holds one of these qualifications, they will be able to apply for registration in the same way as newly qualified psychologists. Any current practitioners who do not have recognised qualifications will be able to go through a process known as "grandparenting"—an assessment process under which each application is assessed individually before the applicant can be admitted to the statutory register. Under this process some applicants may be required to take a test of competence before registration is granted.
	The remainder of the order makes various amendments to the framework legislation for the regulation of dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and those professions regulated by the Health Professions Council. It also extends the statutory regulation of pharmacy technicians to Scotland. Some Members present may recall the interesting debates last year on similar orders and the Health and Social Care Act.
	Changes to the governance arrangements of the General Dental Council and the Health Professions Council include moving each of these bodies from a partially elected to a fully and independently appointed council to ensure that professional interests should not unduly influence council deliberations. In the past year five other health professions regulators have already made this move: the General Medical Council; the General Chiropractic Council; the General Osteopathic Council; the General Optical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
	Other miscellaneous amendments include: the standardisation of the statutory duties to ensure that regulators consider the interests of stakeholders in their deliberations; new arrangements for accountability to Parliament, including a new requirement for each regulator to report on its arrangements for ensuring that it adheres to good practice in relation to equality and diversity; a new requirement for the GDC and HPC to publish a strategic plan; and new arrangements for the constitutions of statutory committees of the GDC and HPC.
	Amendments are made to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 and to a range of fitness to practise rules for each of the regulatory bodies. These amendments will make it easier for regulators to strike off registrants who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults when the new Independent Safeguarding Authority is established.
	Provisions in relation to emergencies such as pandemic flu will allow the registrar of the RPSGB to register anyone he considers suitably experienced as a pharmacist, such as recently retired pharmacists, during a public health emergency and to give enhanced prescribing rights to more of its registrants.
	I should perhaps also point out that in the debates elsewhere on this order, in both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament, the regulation of clinical physiologists and other scientist groups has been raised. Noble Lords may be aware that the role of clinical physiologists is being considered as part of the modernising scientific careers programme, about which the Department of Health recently consulted. Officials are considering the responses to that consultation before developing proposals for regulation. All the measures are supported by each of the regulatory bodies covered by this order. I commend it to the House.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the order which, as some of us know, is the product of many years of discussion between the psychology profession and the Department of Health, as well as extensive discussion within the profession itself. I should like to be able to welcome it wholeheartedly on that account as being the settled view of all the parties involved, but, unfortunately, I cannot quite bring myself to do that because I am aware, as, I am sure, is the Minister, that there is great disquiet among members of the profession about what this order will mean for them and their patients and clients, and the precedent that it is likely to set as regards the related disciplines of psychotherapy and counselling in particular. My mailbag has been full to bursting with letters from psychologists and psychotherapists expressing total anguish about what the order contains and about the consultation that preceded it, which they see as having been stage managed. It has not been particularly easy to tell those correspondents that by longstanding convention this House does not vote down secondary legislation. What we have in front of us, at least the part of it that relates to the regulation of psychologists, cannot, unfortunately, be described as a settled view or one that is universally welcomed.
	Before tackling the detail, perhaps I may briefly comment on the part of the order that gives rise to little or no controversy. I can certainly give a welcome to the section dealing with the General Dental Council. The arrangements will bring the GDC into line with the GMC and other regulators, as the Minister said, regarding the composition of their council, and puts other aspects of its governance arrangements on to a more up-to-date footing. I can also express my support of the provisions that cover the pharmacy profession. The legislation relating to the statutory regulation of pharmacy technicians in England and Wales has not yet been brought into force, so it is welcome that with the order we are considering, there is the immediate prospect of having regulation of pharmacy technicians across Great Britain as a whole. I am also glad that in line with the nursing and medical professions, provisions have been included that will enable the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to register individuals as practising pharmacists on an emergency basis for a temporary period.
	Those are the uncontroversial elements of the order: I return to the more difficult ones. One of the points that people have made when writing to me—I am talking about practising psychologists—is that they see no practical need for statutory regulation of the profession and maintain that the case for it has not been made. With no disrespect to the individuals involved, I have been looking too long at these issues to be able to endorse that point of view. In the 21st century, with a need for full professional accountability, professional standards of practice, transparency and protection of the public, it is difficult to argue that statutory regulation in any form whatever is unnecessary. Some have argued that there is already voluntary regulation through the British Psychological Society and other professional bodies, so why do we need to make it statutory?
	There are several answers. One is that the present system does not protect the key professional titles. Anyone can call himself a clinical or health psychologist without any recognised professional basis for doing so. That cannot be right from the point of view of public protection. Another reason is that although the professional bodies are made up of fair minded and conscientious individuals, they are accountable in the end to no one but themselves. Through the order comes the link to Parliament and the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. I believe that to be a positive, not a negative, step.
	Many of the fears expressed to me have related more to psychotherapists and counsellors than practitioner psychologists. The reason why those fears have been voiced so loudly is that the order is viewed as the forerunner to an inevitable sequel that will impose statutory regulation on those other disciplines. That is what people are fearful of. I will quote from one letter that I have received, which is representative of many:
	"If registration of psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists goes ahead, it will lead to the standardisation of knowledge and training and stifle the diversity of thought and practice among the talking therapies. This diversity is a source of strength and creativity, reflecting the diversity of human experience ... Standardisation is also potentially discriminatory, as it would be based on the dominant forms of subjectivity, which marginalise many [minority groups] ... In the long run it would reduce the choice of therapies available in the independent sector, as training courses not approved by the state would find it difficult to fill places".
	I am troubled by those criticisms, because while one would not want to encourage wild and dangerous experimental practice, I can see that being able to branch out into new territory and not having a totally homogenised and inflexible set of standards is highly desirable. No professional discipline can be set in aspic. The basic charge is that regulation under the HPC will create a narrow and restrictive definition of the field within which psychologists operate and thereby deprive the public of a wide range of therapies; in other words, state-sponsored rigidity. What does the Minister have to say?
	An equally difficult issue that some have raised with me is that practitioner psychologists see their work as more of an art than a science. What that means is that effective outcomes rest largely on the personal qualities of the practitioner, such as empathy and intuition, qualities that are not quantifiable and thus not amenable to regulation. Equally, because each client is unique, what counts as successful professional activity cannot be captured by a set of defined competencies. Individual well-being cannot be captured as a standard because each individual is different, with a different view of what well-being means for him or her.
	I wonder whether the Minister can give me her reaction to this point. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I am not able to form a professional view of it, but one problem is that if good professional practice is wholly incapable of being defined, as is suggested, the same has to be true of poor professional practice and there would be no need to train anyone. That cannot possibly be correct. If it were, it seems that we would not be able to call psychology a profession at all. Nevertheless, there is a kernel of genuine concern about the nature of outcomes in psychology, which are seen as being different in kind and substance from outcomes in, say, medicine, which can be measured and objectively defined.
	Two main concerns have been raised with me by the British Psychological Society and I ask the Minister to comment on them. The first is about the threshold entry level for safe and effective practice. The Minister of State in another place took issue with the BPS's long-standing position on this, which is that the threshold entry is at doctorate level or level 12. That is the level at which all existing qualifications and training are set for all existing chartered psychologists. Therefore, what the Minister said flatly contradicts the assurance which the BPS received, which was that quality standards would not be lowered by the transition from the voluntary to the statutory register. It is also, incidentally, somewhat presumptuous. How can any Minister pre-empt a decision about professional standards that the HPC itself will need to make?
	The second issue raised by the society was helpfully covered in the Minister's remarks; it relates to the chartered psychologists whom this order will exclude from registration. According to the BPS there are about 2,000 of them. I was grateful for the Minister's remarks, but the BPS has pointed out to me that all those people are considered by the society to be suitably qualified and fit to practise and some of them have been on the register for many years. The charge against the Department of Health is that Ministers have taken a decision on an unjustifiably narrow basis to recognise only those chartered psychologists who happen to be members of one of seven professional divisions. Not only will this order leave the public unprotected from this large number of independent practitioners; but it will also disbar those individuals from professional practice using a protected title. This amounts to a distortion of the market and a restraint of trade. That is a serious charge and I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to it.
	A number of correspondents have asked a very simple question, which is, "What makes the Government think that the HPC is capable of protecting the public reliably and effectively in this particular field?" That question brings us back to the debate we held in this Chamber just over two years ago when the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I argued strongly for the setting up of an independent statutory regulator for psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors. The Government have instead chosen to go down the HPC route, apparently because they have set their face against creating yet another independent regulator. But the worries remain, because up to now the focus of the HPC has been very much directed towards professions related to healthcare. Psychology is seen as being quite distinct from healthcare. Large numbers of psychologists work completely outside a healthcare environment and cannot sensibly be subject to the same sorts of standards of assessment. It is the same concern as that which I mentioned earlier. People are afraid that, because the HPC does not understand psychology, it will serve only to homogenise professional regulation in ways that take no account of the individuality and diversity that creative practical psychology should encourage. In other words, it will force psychologists into a regulatory mould in which they do not fit.
	By contrast, a dedicated, professionally-led regulatory body would by definition have been able to accommodate such individuality and diversity. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why, in the end, the Government rejected this option. Had they accepted it, I have little doubt that it would have commanded much wider acceptance among members of the individual professions than, sadly, this statutory instrument has been able to do.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I declare an interest in the parliamentary sense as a consultant psychiatrist in psychotherapy, and I run the Centre for Psychotherapy in Belfast, which is a National Health Service facility.
	I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, she helpfully outlined some of the issues that come to the fore. There are a number of elements of the order to which I wish to draw attention. Like the noble Earl, I entirely welcome the emergency provisions and the safeguarding of vulnerable groups provisions that are put in place. Like him, I find these uncontentious. I understand that, with regard to the professional bodies, no particular objections have been lodged—for example, by the General Dental Council—to the changes that are proposed in the order, effectively to remove the possibility of professionals electing from among their own professional colleagues a number who would exert professional oversight.
	I am less sanguine about this development than many of those involved. The appointment of all members would mean that there is no real independent professional voice, for all effectively will be government appointees. The Government are an interested party in this matter, since in many of these professions they are an almost monopoly employer through the NHS. In the case of dentists, one of the problems is that a degree of disenchantment has meant that a very large number have left the NHS. I would have thought that that in itself was an interesting marker to which the Government and the General Dental Council might have paid attention. However, I do not wish to major on this, because it seems that the professionals in those areas are content to go with it.
	On the subject of regulatory peculiarities, I am used to inconsistencies between different orders. For example, as the noble Earl pointed out, I proposed about 10 years ago the establishment of a council for psychotherapy, and I shall return to that later. The Government insisted that they would not support such a proposal, because they were absolutely not going to have any further separate professional bodies; everything would be subsumed within the Health Professions Council. Then they promptly decided to create the General Pharmaceutical Council, referring to a much smaller number of professionals than would have been the case in psychotherapy, never mind within psychological therapies as a whole. So I am familiar with this kind of inconsistency between orders.
	However, here we have inconsistency within the order. There is now going to be a UK-wide application of a psychologist's registration to all four parts of the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland will be specifically excluded from statutory registration of pharmacy technicians. The order brings Scotland into line, but not Northern Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is not easy to bring into line on a number of issues, but it seems to me particularly strange in this regard, for while there will be relatively few pharmacy technicians in Northern Ireland in numerical terms, and almost all of them will simply work within Northern Ireland, there are already a number of psychologists who operate across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It seems to me that there is something particularly strange here. I rather suspect—in fact, I am rather sure—that the Minister and her colleagues have been in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. I do not for a minute wish to hold her accountable for the decisions of the Northern Ireland Executive, if that were even possible. However, I would be interested to know whether any justification was requested on the differing decisions to have psychology as a UK-wide registration but to have Northern Ireland specifically excluded in respect of pharmacy technicians.
	The main issue is the new statutory registration of practitioner psychologists and the potential implications for psychotherapists and counsellors. The House will be aware that the subject of statutory registration for psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors is one that I have pursued through two Private Members' Bills, a number of Parliamentary Questions, debates and other modalities. I make it very clear that I am supportive of statutory regulation and registration. Indeed, if Her Majesty's Government had accepted some of my proposals in this place 10 years ago, they would have been operative for some time.
	One argument at the time against my Bill was that it would take too long and that to pursue things through Section 60 of the then Health Bill would be much quicker and easier. At that time, I was conducting a number of discussions, which involved the BPS, UKCP, BCP, BACP, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association of Child Psychotherapists and a number of other bodies. The department successfully wooed away the British Psychological Society with the promise that things would move much more quickly. The BPS had been pursuing the possibility of a Private Member's Bill in another place bringing in registration. The department promised that things could move much more quickly if only the BPS would separate itself off from these difficult and contentious people in psychotherapy and counselling. Almost 10 years later, we find ourselves with an order for psychologists and with still nothing really in sight for psychotherapists and counsellors. I think that the concerns of the noble Baroness about the difficulties that there might be ahead are well informed.
	The HPC is being used but, in a letter dated 26 September 2006, the president of the BPS said that the BPS opposed having the HPC as a regulator because it was,
	"not fit for that purpose".
	That is why the BPS had engaged with other professional bodies and brought forward the proposal of a psychological professions council, which would, among other things, have brought all psychological therapies and professionals together. The Minister said that psychiatrists were the only ones that were currently regulated. This is almost the case, because it is also the case that arts psychotherapists are regulated through the Health Professions Council, so there is a little bit of experience there. A psychological professions council would bring all of them together, with a different understanding of things from that belonging to those working in the physical therapies and physical scientific approaches that are largely the base for the Health Professions Council.
	It is also the case, as has been mentioned, that the order has effectively split the profession of psychology. Those psychologists who are working specifically in healthcare and in a number of other areas will be separated off from those who are—if one might say so—the pure science, research academic psychologists, who will not be required to register; in some ways, it would not be appropriate for them to do so, because they are not health professionals. Effectively, this divorces them, which is a problem that would not have arisen if a psychological professions council had been the modality that was taken forward.
	I am puzzled as to why the Government have not proceeded with the psychological professions council. It is only a few minutes since the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was on the Front Bench making kind remarks about me. He was the Minister responsible in 2000 and 2001, when he indicated that there was a case for a separate council. In private, he endearingly called it a "talking heads council", but perhaps the term "psychological professions council" would be more congenial. I think that he did not entirely let go of his belief, even some time later.
	I would like the Minister to put on record why it has not been possible to create the new council. It cannot be a financial or an organisational question, because a much smaller number of practitioners is involved than with the General Pharmaceutical Council, yet it has been possible to establish that. Indeed—here I cast a sidelong glance at the noble Earl—it may not be long before a new Government are in place; they certainly will be before there are proposals for the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. I wonder whether that might be the time—for tonight does not appear to be the time—when we might rectify this misguided approach and establish a psychological professions council that would be the suitable home for psychologists, psychotherapists, counsellors, arts therapists and others, as such a council would understand more fully the complexities of the work and the difference between that work and what is appropriate for the Health Professions Council to regulate.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I speak as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which has been mentioned. It is the body that regulates and reviews the performance of the nine bodies that are the regulators for the individual professions. I thank the Minister for explaining the order so succinctly. CHRE supports the measures and their positive impact on public protection. We very much welcome their introduction.
	Independent statutory regulation of practitioners, including psychologists, is very important to protect members of the public. Regulators should be independent of the Government and the professions that they regulate, so that they can make and be seen to make—that is very important—appropriate decisions in the public interest. For these reasons, regulators have been going through extensive processes to make their structures and governance more responsive to patients and the public. The HPC itself has been going through such processes. Subject to the order being confirmed tonight, I understand that the HPC intends to open registration on 1 July. CHRE welcomes this and believes that it will be welcomed also by patients and the public.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, as a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, let me say that there are some technical deficiencies in the order. I will not concentrate on those tonight, although I will refer to one or two.
	I am not as sanguine as my noble friend Lord Howe is about the benefits of statutory regulation and would like to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said about independence. The great problem with all systems of statutory regulation that I have been involved with is that it is very difficult to believe that you have the independence that you were promised. I have debated the independence of public bodies a number of times in this House and usually I have been disappointed.
	On this occasion, deep within the 51 pages of the order, we come upon Schedule 4, which consists of three and a half pages of amendments to legislation to bring seven categories of "protected title" psychologists under statutory regulation by the Health Professions Council, thus splitting the British Psychological Society down the middle, as its members have testified and as we have been told tonight.
	The statutory regulation of psychologists takes us on to new ground. It is a most significant proposal. Why is it before us? Relying on material put before the Merits Committee, and I hope not being too unkind, I think that the purpose is allegedly to modernise. This is the first new Labour mantra prayed in aid. There are two more: patient safety and public confidence. The problem is that no evidence is produced and no argument made, in the explanation of this order, that the modernisation will improve patient safety or public confidence. It is taken as a given. Nor is any argument made that either patient safety or public confidence is a problem when it comes to psychological practice. The regulatory impact assessment simply states that government intervention is necessary. "Necessary" is a strong word. We are not told why, but I think that we know why: it is an a priori judgment by the Government. As we know, new Labour has a strong preference for Secretary of State-controlled statutory regulation.
	What results from this state-controlled mechanical agenda is an increase from 134 HPC malpractice allegations in 2003-04 to three times that number in 2007-08, against a 30 per cent—less than one-third—increase in practitioners regulated under the 13 present headings. Psychologists will take the HPC on to new ground: matters of the mind. The attempt to codify and define will open the door to a rapid rise in imaginative allegations. One needs only to look at the prescriptive detail that the HPC thinks is appropriate for psychological qualification. Does the Minister really believe that a rising tide of allegations is, or ever will be, a good indicator of patient safety or public confidence?
	There is also the dilemma of the consultation already referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Why is it that many deeply held convictions of professionals were not expressed in the Government's record of the consultation, when the Merits Committee, unusually, received many well argued representations that statutory regulation will not benefit the public? Nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum or the regulatory impact assessment implies any controversy, yet there is plenty about.
	Why the gap in perception? First, it is the centralised, all-powerful NHS effect—the fear of being on the wrong side of a controlling Government who hold many of the purse strings. The loss of employment can turn people into collaborators. Secondly, the consultation questions make it clear that statutory regulation will happen. They ask nothing about patient safety or about public confidence, present or prospective. The heart of the matter is left as an unarguable tautology: modernisation is by its very nature good.
	Finally, there will be additional costs, recoverable, no doubt, through fees. The HPC's costs have been rising sharply and it has had to take a significant property impairment charge. This all looks pretty amateur to this old servant of the public. Any rise in costs is to be doubly deprecated in today's circumstances. We are probably stuck with the order, or at least the psychological part of it, but it should be the last with "psy" in the title.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their perceptive and interesting questions and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for her wise words.
	Perhaps I should start with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. At no point have I used the word "modernise"; at no point have I used the word "codifying". The Government are not intervening for the sake of it, but to ensure patient safety and higher standards. The figures that I shall cite later show that the vast majority of psychologists support this move. The figures speak for themselves. The noble Viscount would have patients take their chances with anyone who cared to call himself a psychologist, dentist, chiropodist or whatever, but his party would be the first to scream when anyone came to harm.
	The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, are much more experienced than I in dealing with this issue, as both of them observed. In the noble Lord's Private Member's Bill of 2001, his views were supported by the noble Earl. The work that has been done has no doubt proved helpful in clarifying thinking about how psychologists should be regulated, what standards should be used and the role of professional bodies in that regulation. I take on board the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made about the time that this has taken. I agree with him; he has a very good point there; there is no doubt about that.
	The noble Earl said that the road down which we are now starting with the regulation of psychologists may lead to the standardisation of talking therapies. That is a legitimate question, but there is no evidence that regulation in other areas has stultified the work of those professions. In this profession, which is based on talking, it is even less likely that that will be the case. To deal with the specific question raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—why did we in the end reject the idea of a psychological therapists council?—both noble Lords gave the answer themselves. In the 2007 White Paper we set out a policy of no new regulators. No one to date has persuaded us to the contrary. The HPC has a very good record as a professional regulator.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, with the exception, apparently, of the pharmacists.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am coming to them. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley pointed out, a recent report on the HPC pointed that out.
	The noble Earl raised the issue of state rigidity in regulation. Psychologists and psychotherapists indeed work with vulnerable people, both adults and children, often in one-to-one situations. What they do carries significant risk to patients and to the public if it is poorly done. Although we do not want to set and impose rigid demands on the professions, it is important that standards are set that protect the public.
	Is this a forerunner to an inevitable sequel for psychotherapists and counsellors? As I said in my opening remarks, there will be a statutory period of consultation before any further orders are laid. Legislation is not inevitable—although we currently agree with noble Lords that it is desirable.
	I turn to the Health Professions Council. It has a good track record in regulating a wide range of professions, many of which work in non-health settings in schools, prisons, industry and private practice. It uses the members of the professions that it regulates to provide professional expertise in regulatory functions such as the setting and approval of education and training. It makes every sense that it does that. Why would it not? It uses them in setting professional practice standards and assessing practitioners' fitness to practise.
	We have consulted widely on the proposal to regulate psychologists under the Health Professions Council in both the 2005 and 2007-08 consultations. There was strong support for the regulation of psychologists through the HPC. I know that people have raised questions about the consultation, but 89 per cent supported statutory regulation of practitioner psychologists; 70 per cent agreed that psychologists and teachers working exclusively in further psychological knowledge should not be regulated; 60 per cent agreed that all seven domains should be statutorily registered by the HPC; and 60 per cent agreed that holders of BPS practising certificates who do not meet the full range of competencies for the seven domains should be eligible for registration only if they demonstrate that they meet HPC standards for safe and effective practice.
	The noble Earl raised the issue of threshold entry to the profession. That is a matter for the HPC to determine. It has recently publicly consulted on the threshold of entry and standards of proficiency. The outcome of the consultation will be considered at the HPC education committee meeting in May. The BPS will have been invited to respond as part of a statutory duty to consult stakeholders, so it will have had the opportunity to make representations on the issue. My honourable friend in another place has answered the letter raising the issue and clarified that with the BPS.
	The noble Earl also raised the issue of whether statutory regulation would narrow treatment options for patients. A balance must be struck between protecting people from misconduct and allowing creative new approaches to treatment, and we believe that the HPC can strike that balance. We are confident that it will respond sensitively to issues of well-being and, as the noble Earl put it, the art of talking therapies as much as their profession.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about Northern Ireland and pharmacy technicians being regulated on a GB basis but psychologists on a UK basis. As the noble Lord said that he knew that I would say, the regulation of health professions is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. On this issue, we have simply followed the wishes of the devolved Administration. They expressed their wish not to regulate pharmacy technicians in the legislation. The General Pharmaceutical Council is taking over existing arrangements of statutory regulation by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. We do not believe that there needs to be a new body for newly regulated professions; the new regulation should be taken on by existing bodies—generally, the HPC.
	The noble Lord and the noble Earl raised the issue of splitting professionals and asked why we were not regulating the academics. We do not believe that this is splitting the profession because the profession will still exist. What we do believe is that we should regulate only in a way that is proportionate to the risk presented to the public. Academics are engaged in research and do not present the same risks that practitioners treating individuals do. I have no doubt at all that the profession will regard itself as a profession and will continue to discuss its issues on that basis.
	The noble Lord also raised the question of why we were doing away with elections for professional members. We have discussed that issue in your Lordships' House on many occasions. The council must be one that can provide effective leadership to the regulators' work, and one which can fully engage with the profession and the public interest, as well as the NHS and the private sector and employer interest. By creating a system of independent appointments, the public and professions can be assured that people are being appointed because of their abilities, their track record, their achievements and their commitment to patient safety. In other words, they are not there as trade representatives; the registrants who have these qualities will be able to apply through a transparent process, and will not subject themselves to an election.
	Finally, the noble Lord asked what might happen in the future. The only thing I would say is that, if his own party wishes to influence the policy of the Conservative Party, he probably needs to have that discussion elsewhere. I beg to move.
	Motion agreed.
	House adjourned until 8.30 pm.

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Copy of Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	1st Report Delegated Powers Committee
	1st Report Constitution Committee
	11th Report Joint Committee Human Rights

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 62
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	62: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
	"Suspension pending review
	(1) This section applies if a policy authority thinks that the condition in subsection (2) or (3) is met.
	(2) The condition is that—
	(a) since the time when an MPS was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the MPS was decided;
	(b) the change was not anticipated at that time; and
	(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the MPS would have been materially different.
	(3) The condition is that—
	(a) since the time when part of an MPS ("the relevant part") was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided;
	(b) the change was not anticipated at the time; and
	(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.
	(4) In the case of an MPS prepared by the Secretary of State acting alone, the Secretary of State, or in any other case the policy authorities in question, may suspend the operation of all or any part of the MPS until a review of the statement or the relevant part has been completed.
	(5) In the event of suspension under subsection (4) the designation of an MPS of the statement or (as the case may be) the part of the statement that has been suspended is treated as having been withdrawn and the provisions of section 46 shall apply."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I shall also speak to Amendments 74, 75, 81, 87 and 88.
	The first of these amendments is similar to an amendment to which I spoke in Committee, so I will not explain the detail of the clause, but I will say, as I said then, that it is lifted from Section 11 of the Planning Act, which provides for a suspension of the policy statement in the event of an unanticipated change in circumstances.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said that there was a distinction between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements in that national policy statements are to be used primarily by a single body, the IPC: and indeed primarily, but not I think exclusively, in decisions on a small number of projects. I accept the differences in those circumstances, but it is important to have a mechanism for suspension as well as for review, so I could not resist putting down Amendments 62 and 81, which would apply to marine plans in order to cover—I am sorry, but no pun is intended here—all the ground.
	In Committee, the Minister was rightly concerned about certainty for everyone who is involved in the process, including applicants, and in terrestrial planning. We have always acknowledged that that is important, but should certainty prevail if it is the wrong certainty—in other words, if circumstances have changed and made it the wrong certainty?
	My Amendments 74, 75, 87 and 88 are about the criteria that apply to decisions: criteria for departing from a policy. We debated at some length "material considerations"—the term that is used in terrestrial planning—and I am grateful for the Minister's letter, which I received after Committee and which deals with what the Government consider to be an equivalent provision, "relevant considerations": the term that is used in the Bill.
	I appreciate that there will be guidance, as the Minister's letter was careful to explain, on what the relevant considerations will be and which considerations should or should not be regarded as relevant. Guidance cannot alter primary legislation, however, so my concern that something that can be relevant but not significant has not been allayed.
	The Minister's letter says that the context would make matters clear, and goes on:
	"I believe that it is clear from the drafting that insignificant or trivial matters will not be sufficient to override the general principle of decisions being taken 'in accordance with' the MPS/plan: the considerations before the decision-maker must actively indicate that the decision should not be taken in accordance with the plan. I would not consider it sufficient simply to say, for example, that there was 'another option available'".
	I think that was dealing with some of the drafting in my amendment in Committee. He said:
	"The guidance we produce will obviously make this very clear".
	I am not reassured by that; Clause 49(5) requires "conformity", which I assume is general and not a strict conformity. How, therefore, can guidance shift the emphasis as he suggests?
	I thought that the next paragraph of his letter rather made my point for me. It said:
	"We will aim as far as possible to give an indication in that guidance of the relative weight that should be given to different kinds of considerations. However, as the debate recognised, this will not always be possible because the 'relevance' and significance of different considerations will depend to a large extent on the decision in question, the site affected, and the potential impact of the 'relevant consideration' on both the project in question and the future possibility of achieving the plan's objectives. The consequences of the departure from the plan will also need to be borne in mind as a 'relevant consideration' in their own right".
	He ended by referring to having enough "flexibility" for the real world. I want that too, but not so much flexibility that we lose the prize of certainty. I remain concerned that there will be too much reliance on guidance getting it right when, if there is a crunch, reference will be made to the primary legislation. Guidance will be referred to, but will not override what is said in what will be the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment 62, proposed by the noble Baroness. If something in the marine policy statement is going to lead to bad decisions, and if that is then recognised, as things stand the mechanism is that there will be a review to try and update it. I think that this amendment is trying to say, "All applications must be suspended until we've got this right. Because we don't want the applications in the pipeline to be based on those bad decisions, let's suspend part or all of the MPS until the review has taken place and the right framework is put in place". I support this amendment; there has to be some sort of mechanism for getting this right, either in the Bill or within guidance. I will be interested to know how the Minister proposes to deal with this.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have suggested, this group of amendments covers two interrelated issues. First, it covers the test for when a marine plan need not be in conformity with a marine policy statement or a decision may be taken other than in accordance with the MPS or a marine plan. There is also the question of suspending the MPS or plan while it is reviewed. I recognise that we debated these matters in Committee; I shall deal first with Amendments 62 and 81, which would introduce new powers to suspend the operation of all or part of the MPS or a plan while it is reviewed.
	The noble Lords have again raised a question that we discussed in Committee, of the contrast between how this is dealt with in the context of national policy statements under the Planning Act, and how we would deal with these matters under the MPS or plans. I know the noble Baroness thinks that, under the MPS, we ought to have the power of suspension in the circumstances that she and the noble Earl have described.
	Our problem is the impact and the number of public authorities and decision-makers which would be affected by a suspension of the MPS or marine plan. We think that it would be vast in comparison with the effect on the IPC, a single body, of suspending a national policy statement. Our worry is that it would be unreasonable to expect such a wide range of public authorities, including local authorities, coastal regulators, enforcement bodies and others, to keep a constant check on which parts of a plan or policy statement were in effect at any given time. We do not accept that it is necessary formally to suspend part of a policy statement or plan in order to review or amend it, even if, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has suggested, we are aware that it has shortcomings.
	In that situation, we would expect the policy authority or marine plan authority to make it known to the relevant decision-makers that their policy on a certain matter had moved on or was being reviewed. This would constitute a relevant consideration for decision-makers and marine users without the need to suspend any part of the document. It also places the emphasis on the policy or plan authority to ensure that affected decision-makers are aware, rather than expect all decision-makers to keep constant vigilance.
	It might be helpful if I explain the difference we envisage between a review of a national policy statement and a review of the marine policy statement, which is directly linked to the question of suspension. The Planning Act contains detailed provisions on the review of national policy statements. Before beginning the review, the Secretary of State must consider whether circumstances have changed since the adoption of the policy statement in a way which was not anticipated at the time and whether the policy set out in the document may have been different had that change been foreseen. Following the review, the Secretary of State must make a decision on whether to replace or amend the national policy statement or to do nothing.
	In contrast, under this Bill, there is no formality connected with the review of the MPS. Therefore, the policy authorities are under a duty to review the MPS when they consider it to be appropriate, which essentially gives more flexibility. In practice, we would expect the review of the MPS to be a continuing activity for all the policy authorities to ensure that the MPS remains up to date and that the policies within it continue to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. This mechanism also enables the MPS to stay fully in effect while an amendment is being prepared. The progress of the preparation of that amendment will also be a relevant consideration, enabling decision-makers to take greater account of the emerging new policy as it moves towards finalisation and adoption.
	It certainly is not the case that we would expect flawed policy to continue to be applied without question, which brings me to the other amendments in this group relating to the relevant considerations test. In Committee, we discussed the circumstances under which decision-makers and planners might cite relevant considerations, and we found some common ground on the kinds of things which were likely to be relevant considerations.
	I also appreciate the noble Baroness's concerns that the word "relevant" does not equate to "significant". But we have problems with her amendments which we believe would impose a higher threshold under this Bill than has been used successfully for many years in terrestrial planning legislation. Let me be clear: the existence of other considerations which may be relevant to the decision at hand is not the end of the test. Those considerations must also indicate that a course of action other than that indicated by the MPS or plan is, in this case, more appropriate. What is more, the consequences of not following the policy statement or plan should also be considered as relevant in their own right.
	Again, I fully accept that the noble Baroness is right when she says that something may be relevant without being important. If that is the case, it would not be sufficient to indicate that the MPS or plan should not be followed. Decision-makers departing from the MPS or plans must give their reasons. I assure noble Lords that we will want to monitor this flexibility closely to ensure that it is being used and not abused. I give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that this matter will be closely monitored. I also make it clear that insignificant or trivial matters will not be enough to override the clear general principle that decisions should be taken in accordance with the MPS, or that plans should conform to the MPS.
	We are debating how precise the situation should be and how much flexibility should be left in guidelines. I know that the noble Baroness is worried about the guidance. We are committed to consulting and providing guidance on the issue. As I said in my letter, we will attempt, as far as possible, to address the relative weight that is to be given to potential relevant considerations. The problem is that the noble Baroness would much prefer this to be in the Bill but that is very difficult to do. There will always be case-by- case decisions. The relative weight of a consideration will depend as much on the circumstances of the case as the question of what is relevant in the first place. That is why I said that we would attempt to give some general principles and broad priorities in so far as they are not already set out in the MPS or plan.
	The matters that have been raised are very legitimate. I doubt that we can give the precision that the noble Baroness seeks, but I hope she will accept my assurance that this will be monitored to make sure that trivial reasons are not used in the way that is feared. Also, there is a significant difference between the MPS and the NPS as regards suspensions. The MPS is, in essence, a more flexible mechanism, which will allow changes to be made more quickly than they would be in relation to the NPS. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will accept that, in resisting the amendments, I very much understand the points that they are making. I hope I have given some reassurance.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, of course I accept the Minister's reassurance. My concern is whether it is adequate. That is not at all to be pejorative of the Minister; I am sure that he will understand that. It is a question of the relative status of legislation and guidance. As regards suspension, a review and possible alteration will inevitably take time, not least because of consultation. If consultation means anything, it means that there must be at least two options, otherwise what is there consult on? There must be the option of doing something and of not doing something. That is in the context of suspension as a measure that might have to be applied, pending review.
	Of course, we will read what the Minister has said about relevant considerations because the detail in that is very important. I am pleased to have it on the record, because others may need to make reference to it. I am not immediately wholly convinced, but I feel more comfortable than I did an hour ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 62 withdrawn.
	Schedule 5: Preparation of an MPS or of amendments to an MPS
	Amendment 63 not moved.
	Amendment 64
	 Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	64: Schedule 5, page 228, line 23, leave out from "be" to "paragraph" in line 24 and insert "allocated for legislative scrutiny of the consultation draft under"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall also speak to the other government amendments in this group, but I shall hold my fire until the Opposition have had the opportunity to present their amendment before I respond to it. It would be unfortunate if I pre-empted what are cogent arguments on the Government's side before we had heard the Opposition's case, so I shall not comment on Amendment 83 at this point; rather I will concentrate on the government amendments, which I am sure will find favour.
	Amendment 68 is the crucial one in the group. It reflects the fact that, when we debated an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, in Committee, it became clear that there was some ambiguity in the wording of the Bill on the timescale available to the legislatures to scrutinise the marine policy statement. We explained then that it was not our intention to curtail the time that the legislatures would have to consider the marine policy statement to just the public consultation period and we promised that we would look at this again.
	Amendment 68 and the other related amendments are a reflection of that further consideration. We have proposed amendments to Schedule 5 to make it clear that the period allocated to an appropriate legislative body or appropriate legislative committee for legislative scrutiny of the consultation draft will be specified by the policy authority. Amendments 67 and 69 make consequential changes to paragraph 9, while Amendment 64 makes a similar change to paragraph 5, as it sets out that the statement of public participation must state the period allocated for legislative scrutiny. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 83 in this group, but I feel that I may be letting everyone down because, having seen the government amendments, I do not have great arguments to put forward. My amendment spells out the devolution arrangements, but it is a matter for the legislative bodies in each of the four jurisdictions how they deal with them. As long as we are assured that nothing in the legislation would prevent the arrangements as spelt out in my amendment, I suppose that I am content and I dare say that the Minister can say that the noble Baroness is right.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for these amendments, which address the concerns that we raised in Committee. It is always reassuring to see an area of confusion cleared up and I thank him for that.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, when the Minister comes to respond, will he clarify whether the government amendments pick up the point made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee? Subsection (1) in her amendment indicates that there would be an opportunity for the appropriate body to have regard to a proposal to withdraw a marine plan. In the Bill as it stands, the relevant authorities can go through a long process of agreeing a marine plan, but the following day one of them could withdraw by simply putting a notice in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette. I am certain that my noble friend's amendment would make provision for the appropriate legislative body to carry out some scrutiny if there was a proposal to withdraw a marine plan and I wonder whether the proposals being brought forward in the government amendments also provide for scrutiny in the circumstances of withdrawal.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing that the government amendments meet the main objective of Amendment 83 and of the discussion that we had in Committee on this matter. On that basis, of course, the Government are pleased that the amendments will be supported and that it is felt that Amendment 83 is not essential.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will recognise that the government amendments relate to scrutiny of the marine plans; that is the area that we are considering. It will be appreciated that the government amendments fulfil the concern that was expressed about the time that legislatures would have for this effective scrutiny. The original drafting of the Bill looked to have unduly curtailed that time and we have now made provision to go beyond the public consultation period and for the authorities to make up their own minds on the amount of time that they need for effective scrutiny. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will recognise the fact that that is the framework within which the government amendments have been tabled; they are a response to that debate in Committee.
	I should make it clear that we are talking about the scrutiny of the marine policy statement. That is where the legislatures will have sufficient time for proper consideration of the statement. We never intended to restrict that. It was pointed out to us that the way in which the Bill was framed produced a restriction on the time; we are taking that away. The legislatures will make up their own minds about the scrutiny process and the time that they require. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will recognise that these amendments have responded to what was the heart of the debate in Committee.
	Amendment 64 agreed.
	Amendment 65
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	65: Schedule 5, page 228, line 33, at end insert—
	"Sustainability appraisal
	6A (1) The relevant authorities must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of their proposals for inclusion in the relevant document.
	(2) The relevant authorities may proceed with those proposals only if they consider that the results of the appraisal indicate that it is appropriate to do so.
	(3) The relevant authorities must publish a report of the results of the appraisal.
	(4) The report is to be published when the relevant authorities publish the consultation draft under paragraph 7."

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this group relates to an issue that was considered at some length in Committee. Amendment 66, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would require that an appraisal of sustainability be carried out on the marine policy statement and that this should be incorporated within the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment directive and other relevant directives.
	We said in previous debates that appraisal of sustainability is inherent in the production of the marine policy statement. However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on this matter, our amendment will place a requirement on the authorities to carry out an appraisal of sustainability of the marine policy statement. My Amendment 65 requires that the relevant authorities carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of proposals for inclusion in the marine policy statement, that they should proceed only if the results of the appraisal indicate that it is appropriate to do so and that they should publish a report of the results alongside the consultation draft. The wording is the same as in Schedule 6 on marine plans.
	Whether or not the SEA directive or another directive, such as the birds and habitats directive, applies will depend primarily on the content of the marine policy statement and the extent to which it contains site-specific policies that could be identified as likely to have an impact on environmental features. We are committed to complying with these directives should they apply, but we do not think that an explicit reference to them in the Bill is necessary. If the directives apply, we already have a legal obligation to comply with them and it is therefore not necessary to duplicate that in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will feel that Amendment 65 goes some considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed in Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister referred to our Amendment 66. He used two slightly different phrases, one of which was the one that, when he used it at a previous stage, led to the wording in sub-paragraph (2). He pointed out that the Government would follow the law in the case of this particular directive or of any other. I am glad that he confirmed that just now when he said that the Government were committed to complying. That sounds more like a political commitment than a legal one, although obviously one wants both. I am glad that he has confirmed the legal commitment. He also pointed out in Committee that the directive might be changed or replaced and there might be other directives. That was one of the bases on which our amendment was criticised and it is why I worded sub-paragraph (2) in this way. I recognise the step that the Government have taken in their Amendment 65.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns of this House and bringing back an amendment to ensure that the relevant authorities must carry out an appraisal of sustainability in the MPS, and for setting out the Government's legal obligation to comply with the directives.
	Amendment 65 agreed.
	Amendment 66 not moved.
	Amendments 67 to 69
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	67: Schedule 5, page 229, line 22, leave out "relevant period" and insert "period allocated to it for legislative scrutiny of the consultation draft"
	68: Schedule 5, page 229, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
	"(6) The period allocated to an appropriate legislative body or appropriate legislative committee for legislative scrutiny of the consultation draft is such period as the policy authority may specify."
	69: Schedule 5, page 229, line 33, leave out "relevant period in relation to" and insert "period allocated for legislative scrutiny of"
	Amendments 67 to 69 agreed.
	Amendment 70
	 Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness
	70: After Clause 46, insert the following new Clause—
	"Report on MPS
	(1) Each policy authority must, no later than 31 March each year, lay before the appropriate legislature a report setting out—
	(a) how, in the opinion of the authority, the MPS has been carried into effect;
	(b) any further steps which, in the opinion of the authority, are required to be taken in order to contribute to MPS being carried into effect.
	(2) The report must also contain the following information—
	(a) information about any amendments which the policy authority has made to the MPS;
	(b) an assessment of the effectiveness of the MPS; and
	(c) any further steps which, in the opinion of the policy authority, are required to be taken in relation to any MPS in order to achieve its objectives.
	(3) In this section "the appropriate legislature" means—
	(a) in relation to the Secretary of State, Parliament;
	(b) in relation to the Welsh Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales;
	(c) in relation to the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament; and
	(d) in relation to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly."

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 84. Amendment 70 seeks parliamentary scrutiny through a report being made to Parliament on the marine policy statements. The parallel provision in Amendment 84 relates to parliamentary scrutiny based on reports on the marine plan.
	To pick up on the debate two sets of amendments ago, the steps that have been taken, which the Minister referred to, are very welcome. Perhaps there was some confusion—my noble friend's amendment in that grouping related more to the marine plan than to the MPS—but some of the points remain relevant. Here we are seeking that there should be a report to the appropriate legislatures on an annual basis in connection with the marine policy statement and with regard to the marine plan, so that the appropriate authorities have an opportunity to set out the extent to which the MPS or the marine plan has been carried into effect and to say whether they believe that it is adequate, whether further steps are needed to ensure effective execution of a plan or whether more is required to give substance to the marine policy statement.
	Much of what we have discussed in these debates, both in Committee and today, relates to work that will be done principally by Secretaries of State, Scottish Ministers, the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales or public bodies such as the MMO. It is important that we remember the parliamentary dimension to this, especially given the length of time that we have devoted to these subjects, which are clearly of considerable importance; I do not think that anyone who has taken part would doubt that. That is why it is important that Parliament should have a regular opportunity to examine whether the mechanics and the framework that we are putting into place in the legislation are bearing the fruit, having the oversight and carrying forward the approach to marine conservation and the treatment of our marine resource in the way in which we as parliamentarians would wish them to.
	I say that also in the context of agreement with the devolved Administrations. It is very much to be welcomed that, in an area of considerable complexity, an agreement was reached. That shows that that can be done where good will applies. It was 10 years ago this week that we elected a Scottish Parliament and, indeed, a Welsh Assembly. We had executive devolution before then in the guise of the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. What the people of Scotland and Wales voted for was some democratic oversight of that devolution. These amendments would at least give an entrée for the respective Parliament and Assembly to have oversight as to what Ministers are doing in pursuance of either an MPS or a marine plan.
	Following the precedent set earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I will not prejudge Amendment 92 in the group, which seeks a report on a three-yearly and, in some cases, a six-yearly basis. I think that it would be better to have it yearly. However, I note that Amendment 92 says:
	"see subsections (3) to (7) ... see subsections (8) to (11)".
	That is a novel form of drafting. I cannot remember seeing that previously in a Bill. It may be something to be welcomed. I am all in favour of trying to put things into more readable English, rather than saying "subject to", "notwithstanding" or whatever. Perhaps he could explain whether this is a novel departure that we should perhaps be welcoming. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, have reopened an area about which, judging from the other amendments in the group, the Government have had concerns. I should like to thank the Law Society of Scotland for putting this forward; I believe I received a prompt from it on that score. The amendment tabled looks so much neater than the raft included in the six tabled by the Government.
	I only differ from the noble Lord in that I think the Government in their Amendment 93 are really proposing a much more practical approach where the reports are spaced out as up to three years. There is always a great danger in allowing politicians to meddle too much with organisations that are trying to evolve and carry out consistent policies.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that there is any disagreement in principle; it is really a question of the years. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his commendation. I would not like to claim that it is an entirely novel approach, but I certainly agree with him that it is very helpful to us trying to find our way through legislation. It is an example that one would like to see followed in the future.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of building in a parliamentary dimension. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Duke are right to suggest that the debates we have had on the Bill show that there is intense parliamentary interest in the marine environment and ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are enacted appropriately. I have no doubt whatever that there will continue to be great interest. Therefore, we need to make sure that Parliament has opportunities to monitor effectively. Given the amount of secondary legislation that will come forward, there will be ample opportunities over the next year or two for Parliament to be kept appraised of the way in which the legislation will unfold.
	In relation to these particular amendments, we think that this is an important matter. My Amendments 92 to 97 build on a proposal put forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. That would have required, as the other amendments in this group do, annual reporting to Parliament on the implementation of marine planning. It was suggested that would place marine planning authorities' activities under greater scrutiny and act as a gentle spur. We accept that point. It will make legislators and the public more aware of progress on marine planning and allow them to apply pressure if they consider it falls short.
	Amendments 70 and 84, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Greaves, also introduce reporting requirements on how the marine policy statement of each marine plan respectively has been carried into effect, amendments made and further steps to be taken. The issue of the timing is this: we expect that a single marine plan and the marine policy statement will take around two years to prepare. The concern that we have on annual reporting is that it might be too onerous and not particularly helpful because of the cycle in the production of marine plan and marine policy statement. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred to that too. That is why we have come up with our own six-yearly reporting, which we think meets the cycle. It will enable these reports to be combined with those required on progress made in implementing the programme of measures required for each region under the marine strategy framework directive. Recognising, from my time of speaking on constitutional affairs at the Ministry of Justice, some benefits in legislation ceasing to operate after a certain time, we have also suggested this duty cease in 2030, by which time we will expect marine planning to be established. Having a sunset clause of this type ensures that the reporting duty does not continue indefinitely, if, for instance, the marine strategy framework directive is amended or revoked.
	At heart there is no disagreement on this. It is a question of whether the reporting mechanism is right. For the reasons stated, we think that annual reporting is just too onerous, which is why I hope that the House will accept my amendments.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, at heart here, as was echoed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is the key principle of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. That principle is well established and agreed among the parties. We could debate the length of time; I hear what the Minister says. It would certainly not be my intention, the principle having been established, to test the will of the House on one, three or six years. However, it is important and I welcome the amendment on the Government's part that there will be that kind of reporting and parliamentary scrutiny, for which some of us were calling in Committee. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 70 withdrawn.
	Clause 49: Marine plans for marine plan areas
	Amendment 71
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	71: Clause 49, page 24, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment takes us to the clause about marine plans for marine plan areas. It must be the time of night, but when I read that a moment ago I wondered where else they would be for. In Committee, your Lordships rejected a requirement that marine plans must be in place by 2012. We thought that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who moved the amendment in Committee, was right about the requirement for plans but that 2012 was over ambitious. My Amendment 71 changes "may" to "must". One day I will understand why "may" meaning "must" is the right term. I have not yet.
	The linchpin of the Bill seems to be marine plans. It is counterintuitive, at any rate to me, that Clause 49 is permissive and not mandatory. We see plans not simply as restrictive but as establishing what can be done where, taking into account the sometimes competing or incompatible potential activities. It is important that there are plans, not least to establish the extent, if there is any extent, of an activity to which some people may object and object very strongly—for example, wind farms. It is all a matter of balance, which we discussed at the previous stage. It is not obvious to me how there can be a balance if there are gaps in the patchwork of plans.
	We have not included a long-stop date. However, to anticipate a possible argument from the Government, we do not regard that as making the amendment meaningless because there must come a point, which probably depends on circumstances, at which a marine plan authority, which has dragged its feet for so long in not producing a plan, is in breach. I believe that a court would see it that way. I suppose that is the test that one must always have in mind.
	Amendment 73, which states that,
	"A marine authority must create a marine plan or plans for the whole of its marine planning region",
	is a little stronger than Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who uses the words "seek to ensure". It is not an absolute obligation. Amendment 73 goes further. A moment ago I referred to a patchwork and this would ensure blanket coverage. Amendments 71 and 73 go hand in hand.
	At the previous stage, in response to my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Miller, who had been chipping in on this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said:
	"Until we start to create plans we cannot be sure how extensive the coverage will need to be, so it is better not to prejudge the issue in legislation by requiring total coverage".
	My noble friend Lord Greaves quite rightly came back with the comment that,
	"the plans deal with the issues to a greater or lesser degree of detail according to the circumstances in their area. That is not to argue against having a plan for an area; it is just that there is not as much in that plan".—[Official Report, 10/2/09; cols. 1074-75.]
	My noble friend was absolutely right. I hope that the Government will not resort to that argument again. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has pointed out, my amendment in this group follows on from the debates in Committee. As the noble Baroness has told the House, at that stage we voted, but unfortunately lost an amendment to the Bill which would have inserted a duty and timetable to roll out marine plans over the whole marine area. Therefore, this is about our ambition for the Bill and our wish that the Government share that ambition. The Minister made several objections to our amendments, one of which was that there were limits to what duties he could place on the marine authorities. In bringing back this weaker amendment, we have listened to that concern and seek to insert only a requirement to acknowledge the desirability of covering the whole of marine planning regions with a plan.
	Despite the efforts made by everyone to prevent unnecessary repetition on Report, following our very extensive debates on this part in Committee, many of the organisations involved in these proceedings have again raised their concerns about this point: not only the voluntary organisations which are members of the Wildlife and Countryside Link group and the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, but also the Countryside Council for Wales, the British Wind Energy Association and the Environment Agency. This is not surprising: marine plans are the key to delivering the policy of sustainable development. We have all spoken in support of an ecosystem approach. Comprehensive planning is the only way to deliver this. We have also all spoken in favour of pursuing a clear and consistent approach to marine management. Indeed, it is in the list of the MMO's core duties and is the reason that the joint MPS is so important. With no consistency clarified by comprehensive marine plans, what certainty is available to companies wishing to make the high levels of investment needed to meet our renewable energy targets? Of course, the success of the marine conservation zones also depends on universal marine plans. Not only are they areas that will require more detailed plans than any others, they are to be established on a national basis. Decisions must be made consistently across the network if they are to succeed.
	The Government have tabled amendments in this area in response to related points we raised in Committee and we are very grateful to them for doing so. Their amendments will ensure that there is greater transparency, which is always a good thing. The ongoing reporting on marine planning might provide an incentive for authorities to produce marine plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, suggested in Committee, but this incentive would be better spelt out in primary legislation.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I support all three of these amendments, but yet again I incline more towards those tabled by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am afraid that I am a great disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and to the noble Earl. Noble Lords have said it all but I simply add that marine plans need to cover the whole UK marine area or cherry-picking will arise with the licensing system. Since a large part of a marine plan comprises establishing the database and the baseline on which future decisions can be made, which will help to track the environmental quality of the area, it would be remiss not to opt for a fairly fast process of covering the whole marine area. Therefore, I support the amendments.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we debated these matters extensively in Committee and I recognise the strength of feeling about them in the House. However, the Government see difficulties with the amendments we are debating. Amendment 71 would create a duty to plan. In Committee I said that there were difficulties associated with imposing a legal duty to prepare marine plans. For example, if the marine plan authority withdraws from the marine policy statement, or if the marine policy statement is withdrawn by the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State does not agree to a devolved Administration's plan, the marine plan authority will be unable to fulfil its duty to plan. In addition, if adopting a marine policy statement brings with it a duty to plan, it could be argued that it might deter some policy authorities from adopting marine policy statements. Therefore, there are genuine difficulties here. I question whether prescribing such detail in the legislation is the right course of action.
	Amendments 72 and 73 would lay down that plans should be prepared for the whole of the marine planning region where the marine policy statement governs marine planning. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that his measure is supported by many organisations. However, I am not sure that there is unanimity of view on this matter. Many stakeholders have told the Government that they agree that the system needs to evolve and that we need to learn lessons as we go along. Until we start to create plans, we cannot be sure how extensive the coverage will need to be. We are worried about prejudging the situation by putting this into legislation and by requiring total coverage, whether by a single plan or several.
	As there are different planning authorities around the UK, it is for each of them to decide where and when plans are needed and whether they entail full coverage of their planning area. We think that the most important consideration would be to plan the most appropriate way for the area concerned. That would almost certainly involve plans of different scales and sizes containing more or less detail depending on the data available, the needs of the area and the levels of activity requiring management and consideration. There is a question of proportion. There must be a question of how much value would be added by an obligation to prepare plans for the whole of the UK marine area, or even the whole of a marine planning region, particularly in the far reaches of the offshore regions.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that,
	"plans must be made in a proportionate manner, varying with regard to the amount of information available and the necessary detail. This would mean that there could be comprehensive plans across the whole marine area, without taking up too much unnecessary time or effort for plans that will remain less detailed".—[Official Report, 10/2/09; col. 1068.]
	That point was made again tonight. It is deceptively inviting to go down that route. While I agree that planning must be proportionate, I am not sure that it is right that one could in certain parts of the marine area be much less detailed. The marine planning process is necessarily intensive and detailed, involving extensive public consultation and consideration of data and evidence. We cannot shortcut this process, which is set out clearly in Schedule 6, without undermining the quality of the plans being prepared and risking losing the confidence of those using the area and the plans. What is more, it is hard to see how such "light touch" plans containing little detail for large areas would be of any benefit for marine users and decision-makers above and beyond the policies already set out in the MPS. To that extent, the MPS can be seen as a strategic-level marine plan for the whole UK marine area. The MPS thus ensures that there is certainly no danger of there being areas of the sea which lack any kind of strategic approach to marine management.
	In practice, we expect that planning will be of most value in the inshore area, and I am happy to commit to ensure that we draw up plans to cover the English inshore region. We will put this requirement in the direction on planning that we give to the Marine Management Organisation, with which it is under a legal obligation to comply. The Welsh Assembly Government intend to develop a plan for the entire Welsh inshore region. That should give sufficient reassurance of our intentions on the matter. We have, of course, just debated our proposal to insert a new duty on a marine plan authority to report on the plans it has prepared and its intention regarding their amendment and the preparation of any further plans.
	In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will understand that there is no lack of commitment in taking the legislation forward and wishing to see appropriate plans in place. Although my response has been technical to some degree, there is substance and legitimate reasons behind why I would caution the House against going down the route of these amendments. I hope that the assurance I can give regarding the inshore region of England and our assurance from the Welsh Assembly Government go some way to providing the reassurance that noble Lords would require.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Do I understand his reservation to be that he does not see that the whole of the inshore area will be covered by the marine plans; or is it just the fact that this will take time and therefore he wants to have the freedom to make it in bits rather than the whole? Clearly, if one makes it in bits, surely the overall marine plan itself would not be as strong as if it had been made as a complete plan throughout the area.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what I have said is that I can give the assurance that we will commit to ensuring that we draw up plans to cover the English inshore region. We can certainly commit to saying that, as the work goes forward, there will be a point where the whole of the English inshore region is covered. My concern goes wider than that. The implication, particularly of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is that if one goes across the whole area that can be covered by plans, perhaps some of the outer areas can be covered by a plan, because you do not have to do a lot of detailed work.
	The point that I am making is that, none the less, you have to go through the process as set out in Schedule 6, which could involve you in a lot of work indeed. We would rather see how this goes and then make further judgments as to how far the plan should extend.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanations. I am not sure that I am wholly persuaded on the issue of coverage by his saying essentially that the process might prove to be a waste of time. I am putting that in quite simplistic language. The process may lead to something that is not very detailed; we are not prescribing detail in the amendments, but really seeking consistency of approach. I remain a bit worried that having no plan rather undermines the Bill for the areas for which there is no plan.
	On the issue of it not being possible to have a plan because of withdrawal, for instance, it seems to me that the Government should be looking for a way to ensure that the duty to have a plan produces the desired outcome of having a plan, rather than arguing that there might be reasons for an authority not to be able to produce a plan. I had better not try to draft on the hoof on that. It is my failing not to have anticipated the argument and produced an amendment that might have gone some way to meet it. However, given the time of night—

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I must give notice to the House that, if the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I intend to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, then I am perfectly happy to test it on my amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Division on Amendment 71
	Contents 21; Not-Contents 49.
	Amendment 71 disagreed.

Amendment 72
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	72: Clause 49, page 24, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) A marine plan authority must seek to ensure that a marine plan is or plans are prepared for the whole of its marine planning region where an MPS governs marine planning for the region."
	Division on Amendment 72
	Contents 48; Not-Contents 46.
	Amendment 72 agreed.

Amendments 73 to 75 not moved.
	Consideration on Report adjourned.
	House adjourned at 9.56 pm.